Posted on 02/25/2026 7:18:42 AM PST by BHI2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bill of Rights lists VERY FEW RIGHTS,and creates the impression that those are ALL OF THE RIGHTS. Before the Bill of Rights, (which came THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION) we had one billion rights, INCLUDING ALL OF THE RIGHTS LISTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the federal government had a few powers. AFTER the Bill of Rights, the federal government has one billon powers, and we have a few rights.
Almost every human being on planet Earth reads the BOR this way: The Department of Education is Constitutional because the BOR does not prohibit it.
Read the BOR: it’s legal (according to at least half the people on this website) for Trump to take your bump stocks, because the BOR does not prohibit this.
Read the BOR: it’s legal to send 8 million of your dollars to Sri Lanka to teach journalists not to offend LGBTQ people, because the BOR does not prohibit this.
Read the BOR: it’s legal to set up Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, the Dept. of Commerce, HHS, Dept. of Labor, etc. etc. etc., because the BOR does not prohibit this.
NOW, READ THE ENUMERATION. The original, BETTER bill of rights, the bill of rights preferred by the Framers of the Constitution.
Read the Enumeration and it’s unconstitutional for Trump to take your bump stocks because the Enumeration does not allow it.
Read the Enumeration and it’s unconstitutional for your dollars to go to Sri Lanka to teach journalists not to offend LGBTQ people, because the Enumeration does not allow it.
Read the Enumeration and it’s unconstitutional to set up Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, the Dept. of Commerce, HHS, Dept. of Labor, etc. etc. etc., because the Enumeration does not allow it.
Now, read the words on the Framers themselves on why the BOR is a very bad idea, and why they REFUSED to place it in the Constitution.
I go further, and affirm, that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. – Alexander Hamilton
In a government consisting of enumerated powers, such as is proposed for the United States, a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but, in my humble judgment, highly imprudent. In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution, is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated, is presumed to be given. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete. On the other hand, an implied enumeration of the powers of government, reserves all implied power to the people; and, by that means the constitution becomes incomplete; but of the two it is much safer to run the risk on the side of the constitution; for an omission in the enumeration of the powers of government, is neither so dangerous, nor important, as an omission in the enumeration of the rights of the people. — James Wilson
A proposition to adopt a measure that would have supposed that we were throwing into the general government every power not expressly reserved by the people, would have been spurned at, in that house (the Convention), with the greatest indignation….In a government possessed of enumerated powers, such a measure would be not only unnecessary, but preposterous and dangerous. — James Wilson
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights that were not placed in that enumeration, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. — James Madison
I go further, and affirm, that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? –Alexander Hamilton
The whole plan of government [of the Constitution] is nothing more than a bill of rights. It has already been incontrovertibly shown that on the present occasion a bill of rights was totally unnecessary, and that it might be accompanied with some inconveniency and danger, if there was any defect in the attempt to enumerate the privileges of the people. -- Justice Thomas McKean, delegate to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention.
McKean also asks (rhetorically and brilliantly), if a person wants to sell 250 of his 1,000 acres, is it necessary to “reserve” the other 750? In other words, when you show up at my house to buy my car, do I have to attach to the bill of sale a document listing all the many thousands of my other possessions that I am not selling to you? Enumerate all the rights of men! I am sure, sir, that no gentleman in the late convention would have attempted such a thing. – James Wilson
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The solution was to add the 9th and 10th amendments. The fact the 10th amendment was run roughshod over by the Commerce clause only shows how necessary the explicit enunciation of the other eight was.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Bill of Rights is a list of what the Government CANNOT do. It ties their hands. Hell, even Obama recognized that, because it held him back as much as modern politics allows.
Without it, we would be experiencing the free speech of England. In England cops carry a general search warrant in their wallet.
Guns? They would have been long gone. British church leaders can be arrested for a sermon.
We are far better protected by the bill of rights than not. It would be impossible to make a comprehensive list of what government cannot do. And yes, if it it not forbidden, it can be made legal within some parameters. So yes, the Dept of Education is quite legal.
But I would rather have this situation that a situation where government didn’t even have to pretend to follow it.
And you mention Madison. Although initially hesitant, James Madison became the primary author and champion of the amendments in the First Congress to ensure the Constitution’s adoption.
The “solution” of the 9th and 10th was the worst solution of all time. Seriously, how many people on this forum said the bump stock ban was illegal because of the 9th and 10th amendments? ZERO.
Sadly the 9th and 10th are unknown, unloved, forgotten, and UNENFORCED.
We know that with or without a bill of rights, the subject of our liberties time and time and time again over the last 200+ years has been the catalyst of heated and intense controversy, litigation, legislation, and even armed conflict. With or without a bill of rights, the questions of just what our constitutional rights are, where in that document they are found, and how they are protected would, therefore, be extremely familiar to all Americans—every bit as familiar as the Bill of Rights.
If, from day one, and stretching 200+ years into the future, you had never once found your rights other than in the Enumeration, then you’d be very unlikely ever to forget the Enumeration. Is the Bill of Rights in any danger of being forgotten? If Congress were tomorrow to propose to abolish several newspapers because Congress found them offensive, how likely is it that the people would somehow forget the Bill of Rights and think the proposal legal and constitutional?
Without a bill of rights, however, Americans long, long ago, would have been forced to know something of the context of the creation and ratification of the Constitution, and something of the thoughts of the men who wrote it.
Therefore, without a bill of rights, but with better than 200 years of history behind us, every schoolchild would be able to recite with complete confidence a vague yet true statement to the effect that “We have lots of rights. The federal government’s rights are few and defined, and they are chiefly found in our Constitution in Article I, Section VIII. A new federal government proposal to regulate the press because of, say, a recent spate of “fake news” is not one of the powers granted the federal government. The proposal is, therefore, illegal.”
Instead of memorizing simply “freedom of speech, religion, and press” and nothing else, we would have memorized a few words to sum up James Madison below in Federalist 45.
The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments in times of peace and security.
All of what you say is wrong. The DOE is ILLEGAL!!!! Period. Read the Enumeration—nowhere are the feds allowed to take my GD money and give it to bureaucrats for the DOE. NOWHERE.
Without the BOR, we would still have free speech for the simple reason STATED BY THE MEN WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION: without the BOR, people would consult the Enumeration and find no power for the feds to suppress my speech rights.
Madison was never in favor of a bill of rights. I will post in one minute how Madison used the BOR as a trick and a scam. And it was a brilliant scam!
I understand the concern, but did we really want to leave those things not enumerated in the Constitution (but included in the Bill of Rights) up to the individual states?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. I fully agree with the negatives associated with the Bill of Rights that have been exploited by the enemies of the Constitution, but not having those rights such as the 1st and 2nd Amendments left up to individual states sounds worse to me.
I see it as close to the horns of a dilemma. And as most people know, when faced with the horns of a dilemma, you only have three options:
Get gored on the right horn.
Get gored on the left horn.
Try to go between the horns.
It sounds to me like the Bill of Rights is a classical attempt to go between the horns. The outcome is less than desirable, but...you don’t get gored.
Am I seeing this incorrectly? (Note: If I am not seeing it correctly, I won’t take a correction as some kind of attack on me. I am no great Constitutional scholar, though I think I have given enough thought to it that I understand it better than most citizens. I may still not see it correctly.)
“For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? –Alexander Hamilton”
Because Alex, without the First Amendment, they would simply argue that nothing in the Constitution forbids them from restraining the press. Ever hear of the Stamp Act?
Or the Licensing Act of 1662: Reestablished after the Restoration to control political/religious dissent, this act required official approval for all publications, aiming to prevent “seditious” material.
Stationers’ Company Control: Since 1557, this company held a monopoly, regulating who could print and seizing unlicensed works.
Star Chamber Decree (1637): A severe decree that limited the number of master printers, banned unauthorized reprinting, and required all publications to be licensed.
Printing Ordinance of 1643: Implemented by Parliament during the Civil War to suppress royalist pamphlets.
That kind of crap is what they were wanting to forbid. All of that was not forbidden in the UK, and they still believe they have the right to do those same laws today.
Don’t believe me? Ask Elon Musk about freedom of the press in the UK.
All true. If Congress simply stayed within their constitutional lane and the states enforced their various state constitution mandates freedom and justice would prevail.
So, what is behind the fact that the Bill of Rights did not really amend, and was not intended to amend, the Constitution? Why write it, then? It helps to realize that James Madison is known as “The Father of the Constitution.” He is also known as “The Father of the Bill of Rights.” There’s a clue in that.
Madison was, understandably, a partisan of the constitution that he had written. The Anti-Federalists were not. They were vehemently opposed to the new federal government created by that document and were pushing for a bill of rights to radically alter it, or even for a second convention to create a new government entirely from scratch. Madison did not want to change the constitution that he had written, so he wrote a bill of rights that indeed did not change in any meaningful way “his” constitution. Simple.
It was written for no reason other than to fool people. The Bill changed virtually nothing, and that was precisely the intent of the man who wrote the Bill. As one author noted, the amendments were “carefully crafted to change not one word of the original Constitution.” The Bill’s author had no desire to change the Constitution, and the Bill was created to fool those who desired a bill of rights into thinking that he had produced one.
Madison’s amendments were not designed to fool Anti-Federalist leadership, men like Patrick Henry, who, in fact, rejected the Bill of Rights, precisely because it changed nothing. The amendments were, however, meant to fool the masses, the people. And to the extent that the people really did want the Bill (there is debate as to how motivated the people really were for amendments versus how much the push had to do with powerful, elite leadership by the likes of men like Henry), Madison succeeded.
When you say “they,” who are you referring to?
As for why the Bill was written....
So, what is behind the fact that the Bill of Rights did not really amend, and was not intended to amend, the Constitution? Why write it, then? It helps to realize that James Madison is known as “The Father of the Constitution.” He is also known as “The Father of the Bill of Rights.” There’s a clue in that.
Madison was, understandably, a partisan of the constitution that he had written. The Anti-Federalists were not. They were vehemently opposed to the new federal government created by that document and were pushing for a bill of rights to radically alter it, or even for a second convention to create a new government entirely from scratch. Madison did not want to change the constitution that he had written, so he wrote a bill of rights that indeed did not change in any meaningful way “his” constitution. Simple.
It was written for no reason other than to fool people. The Bill changed virtually nothing, and that was precisely the intent of the man who wrote the Bill. As one author noted, the amendments were “carefully crafted to change not one word of the original Constitution.” The Bill’s author had no desire to change the Constitution, and the Bill was created to fool those who desired a bill of rights into thinking that he had produced one.
Madison’s amendments were not designed to fool Anti-Federalist leadership, men like Patrick Henry, who, in fact, rejected the Bill of Rights, precisely because it changed nothing. The amendments were, however, meant to fool the masses, the people. And to the extent that the people really did want the Bill (there is debate as to how motivated the people really were for amendments versus how much the push had to do with powerful, elite leadership by the likes of men like Henry), Madison succeeded.
Most law schools no longer teach “original intent”. Instead the legal profession, and politicians, have adopted the “living Constitution”. As a result all of the words of the Constitution can be “interpreted” to mean about anything any judge on a given day wants it to mean. Likewise Congress appropriates funds for many projects and activities not enumerated in the Constitution. Several presidents since 1941 have taken the nation into multiple wars, killing tens of thousands of American citizens. In doing so they have ignored the very specific requirement that a formal Declaration of War must pass both houses of Congress before American troops can engage in war with foreign powers. Our current President has followed premise of the “living Constitution” to attack Iran, conduct a surprise military operation in Venezuela to kidnap its president, and has in recent weeks positioned a huge military strike force off the coast of Iran while threatening to attack Iran for the second time during the last few months.
None of the branches of government established in the Constitution - Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, plus the extremely powerful entrenched federal bureaucracy which yields considerable power but is not enshined in the Constitution, have any interest or desire to return to the Constitution of the founding fathers. Given that over 50% of the people receive government benefits of some kind, and most of the largest corporations enjoy signifiant sales, subsidies, and special privileges provided by government, there is little desire in the population or the economy to return to original intent. Our society has replaced freedom of the individual with dependence on big government.
Hence, the rule of law has been dispensed with and completely politicized. With politicization has come rampant corruption and a multi tiered legal system where justice is meted out based on insider deals, political affiliation, group alliance, or whim. The concepts of “equality”, “fairness”, and “justice” have been distorted beyond recognition to the point they are non-existent and are meaningless. The concept of God given natural rights has been replaced by privileges awarded based on affiliation with politically and/or economically powerful organizations.
How many of the 435 Congressmen, 100 U.S. Senators, over 800 federal judges, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers have read the Constitution in its entirety once in their lives? Likely less than 20%. In the general population that number is certainly less than 5%. How many high school students in today’s education system are taught the history and meaning of the Constitution as it was written and as the Framers intended. Perhaps 1%. Ignorance is bliss, if you have no knowledge of it, you cannot understand it. If you depend on others to tell you what the document says, you are a slave.
The left has won the battle to destroy the Constitution of the Founding Fathers. If it were not for the Bill of Rights, today’s adherents to the living Constitution would permit us to have no rights at all. As it is the courts and Congress are slowly narrowing, or ignoring, the very specific language of the Bill of Rights. The Covid lockdowns, the treatment of the January 6 protesters, the internment of Japanese American citizens during WWII, the secret FISA courts, and the daily monitoring of the phone calls of every American citizen by the NSA and other agencies is more than sufficient evidence the government will completely ignore the language of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, when it desires and there will be no consequences.
In a world of no rules applicable to every citizen, and no accountability for even the most heinous violations of individual rights, everything goes and the individual has no liberty.
What do any of those foreign laws or acts have to do with the Constitution?
And if laws are so simply ignored, wiped away, and trounced, what is the point of writing any law, even the BOR?
If the Enumeration would be worthless garbage to be ignored at will, why is not the BOR worthless garbage to be ignored at will?
No the enumeration is ignored and forgotten BECAUSE of the BOR, just as the FRAMERS PREDICTED!
The fact the 10th amendment was run roughshod over by the Commerce clause only shows how necessary
I would argue that the Commerce Clause did not run over the 10th Amendment. It was run over by a 1942 Wartime Supreme Court wanting to back up FDR and 8 of the 9 were FDR new deal appointees.
The Commerce Clause wasn’t to blame. A runaway activist progressive court was. And no words on paper could have stopped that.
Terrible scattered brain rant. “READ THE ENUMERATION”, but you never provide it.
“A new federal government proposal to regulate the press because of, say, a recent spate of “fake news” is not one of the powers granted the federal government. The proposal is, therefore, illegal.””
That wasn’t the experience of the founders in the Government they were braking away from. The exact opposite was the case.
Thank you for posting.
This has long been my pet peeve, as you can probably tell from my FR name.
We have a lot of gun rights, yes? And speech rights, yes?
Do you believe that in this world where the Feds take ALL that they can, that somehow having speech and gun and press and religious rights is a COINCIDENCE? Those rights are mentioned in the BOR and JUST COINCIDENTALLY the evil feds are hands off with those exact same rights? No, it is NOT a coincidence.
AS THE FRAMERS PREDICTED, we have those tiny remaining rights because we were dumb enough to write them down.
If we had NOT written them down, the Enumeration would NOT HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN. If the BOR is in no danger of being forgotten, what makes anybody think that, with no BOR around to distract, the Enumeration would be forgotten?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.