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
Well, you could look it up...
Well, yes, and that’s because the Kind did not labor under an enumeration.
“So, what is behind the fact that the Bill of Rights did not really amend, and was not intended to amend, the Constitution?”
It was a critical list forbidding the most egregious acts that the British government inflicted on America. And quite literally it did Amend the Constitution. You are delusional. No, Madison and Patrick Henry pushed for it and not as some “trick”.
“What do any of those foreign laws or acts have to do with the Constitution?”
They are form the Government our Founders Broke away from. And they experienced those laws and recognized nothing in British law forbade them. They wanted to ensure that we were protected.
And thank god they did or we would be as “free” as Britain is today.
dred scott could not be reached for comment.
Quite literally it did NOT amend the Constitution. As Goldwin wrote in “From Parchment to Power,” the Bill was
“carefully crafted to CHANGE NOT ONE WORD of the original Constitution.”
And as THE FRAMERS SAID, all of those things in the BOR were ALREADY ILLEGAL under the Enumeration. As the FRAMERS said.
You are correct: Madison and Henry did not push a trick. That was Madison alone, as noted, again, in “From Parchment to Power.”
The Framers DID ensure we were protected: under the enumeration, we had ONE BILLION rights, 3.5 years before the BOR turned ONE BILLION into a few.
True.
The Bill of Rights is necessary, and exists, because people are inherently evil. Also, governments are made up of these very same people. As Hamilton asked, paraphrasing “Why do we need to enumerate these things that shouldn’t need enumerating?” In a moral and ethical society, that is a valid question. Once society veers away from that, the question falls flat in the face of reality.
And there’s the genius of the Framers. They understood this and did the best they could to mitigate the repercussions of when society veered off that path, and governments became corrupt. The other stroke of genius was them realizing that they were not infallible, and neither would the people that followed them. hat’s why they made it so hard to actually change the Constitution. This is why in the modern era all the attacks on the BoR and Constitution (from both wings of the same bird) are done through judicial advocacy and bureaucratic chicanery, rather than through the framework the Founding Fathers laid out.
Is all that perfect? Not by a long shot. I think the track record shows that it’s the best “worst” system out there, though.
Indeed. In fact, Madison went further.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison
Not sure of your point...
What is interesting is the difference between political and legal limits. The lawyers in the room during the Federal Convention rejected the BOR outright. Yet supermajorities in the House and Senate passed it almost immediately.
One wonders if the government’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion was what sealed the deal.
Of course it did not change the constitution. That was not it's purpose. It was to list some of the things that the governments of Europe had done in the past and to say "We will not do those things".
We will not throw you in jail for speaking, we will not force you to attend a church of our choosing, we will not disarm you, we will not quarter troops in your home because we dislike you and want to break you.
These are all things that they had to promise to not do now or in the future for people to accept their coming up with this new government.
I am sorry that this bothers you.
I suggest that Delta is ready when you are.
Go.
The world awaits you with no Bill of Rights.
Yes: under the enumeration welfare is ILLEGAL.
Under the BOR? Well, 8 million of your dollars went to Sri Lanka to teach newspaper men how to be nice.
See Franklin Pierce below, vetoing a bill to give welfare to farmers.
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the federal government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. [Such spending] would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and subversive of the whole theory upon which the union of these States is founded.
— Franklin Pierce
the SCOTUS will never be perfect, nor will their interpretations, the BOR gives a foundation, but even that left dred scott up the creek.
our founders were brilliant but us that follow need more direction. enumeration or declaration will always fall subject to the whims of the people.
we do need quicker actions to correct the injustices.
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.
Ping Ping Ping
Almost immediately?
Not according to Robert Goldwin in “From Parchment to Power”
An excellent history of the Bill tells us that what was included and excluded from the Bill were “determined almost entirely by Madison’s legislative leadership.” Also, the amendments were debated “only because of Madison’s stubborn persistence.” Lastly, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the House were almost “unanimously opposed” to the amendments, and told Madison of their feelings “in terms that were caustic, scornful, and even derisive.”
None of what you write “bothers” me. It’s all incorrect, but it does not bother me.
“They had to promise for people to accept this new gov,” you write. The people ALREAY HAD accepted the new gov, 3.5 years BEFORE the BOR.
Also, as pointed out already, ALL THE THINGS IN THE BOR, WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL!
Well, maybe smart people don’t chase poorly written rants.
Yes, sadly, under the enumeration, the feds could not regulate slavery, except that tiny mention of ending the importation after XYZ date.
The fact is, the southern states were never going to sign on to a government that could, 10 minutes after ratification, abolish slavery.
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.