Your rights are what ever five-robed tyrant say they are.
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
I disagree. Amendment IX makes it crystal clear that this is NOT all the rights there are and nobody can argue that it is. That was the whole point of that Constitutional Amendment.
Thanks for saying so, and I posted that understanding that it isn’t fully great, since, as John Adams famously said, our government is made for a “religious and moral people”...and our government of men is nothing of the sort.
If I could fault the Founders with anything it would be in not explicitly laying out each state's right to unilateral secession. That is the ultimate check on the power of the federal government to abuse them. They thought it was unnecessary because each state thought it retained the right to unilateral secession and 3 states (Virginia, New York and Rhode Island) explicitly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time that they ratified the constitution. Every state understood itself to have that right. Nobody even argued at the time that there ratification of the constitution was thereby defective or that unilateral secession was in any way inconsistent with the Constitution.
The other Amendment the Founders should have included was the one Jefferson listed as his biggest regret. They should have placed explicit limits on the federal government's ability to borrow money. IMO, they should have required a balanced budget except in time of declared war against a foreign enemy - and should have included a deadline by which any money borrowed for foreign wars had to be paid back
Correct. As I’ve already said several times, the BOR was not MEANT to destroy the enumeration, but it HAS destroyed the enumeration, AS PREDICTED BY THE VERY MEN WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.
As Framer James Wilson said, the BOR creates a false “presumption.” The INTENT of the BOR is IRRELEVANT: the RESULT of the BOR, AS PREDICTED BY THE FRAMERS is you lost a billion rights, and now have a few. The gov had a few powers, and now has a billion, including sending your money to Sri Lanka to give to newspaper writers.
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
At the time of the revolution, EVERY state had slavery. At the time the Constitution was ratified, most states still had slavery including Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. No, it was not just Southern states that had it when the Constitution was ratified in 1791.
The 10th was NOT necessary—the enumeration already did all that the 10th was meant to do.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
My beef is with the money clause. By not further directly outlawing printed, fiat money - like the Roman Empire, we feed the government beast and collectivists (that steals our rights and bankrupts us) with massive printed money and debt.
Exactly.
The 10th is explicit - which I always favor.
I think they should have kept the language at the powers of the federal government being only those “expressly delegated” by the states as was contained in the Articles of Confederation.
Very interesting...
I’ve always read, though perhaps it is incorrect, that it was only the southern states threatening to leave the Convention if slavery were threatened.
Thanks for the clarification, though.
It is FAR better to list what a government is PERMITTED to do, than what it SHALL NOT do.
Because what it SHALL NOT do should be innumerable.
What it is PERMITTED to do should be very select.
EXACTLY AND PRECISELY CORRECT!
Here is a brilliant nugget for you...
One last word about bills of rights in general. In Federalist 84 and at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, we find Hamilton and James Wilson, respectively, remarking brilliantly on those times and places where bills of rights were more logical and served man, rather than stealing his liberties. They had their place in situations where the governed had few if any rights before managing to wrest, usually by force of arms, some meager scraps from their rulers.
When the king is presumed to possess all legislative powers, and the people are able to snatch a few precious liberties from the royal grip, then it makes all the sense in the world to list those few rights. But with our Constitution, the American people were in precisely the opposite situation; all legislative power rested with the people from the start. It made far more sense in our case to list the few treasured liberties that we the people were willing to compromise for the necessity of government.
We stole an idea from serfs, whose situation was exactly opposite ours, and we became them. They listed a few rights (the only ones they had); we then followed their lead and listed a few rights, and they became the only ones we have. How amazingly ironic!
How could you have read and written that entire response to FLT-Bird in 61 seconds??
I am copying and pasting from my recently published book...
Your rights are what ever five-robed tyrant say they are.
Your initiative and thought process are refreshing.
Thank you for posting.
I should very much like to know your book. Please share via PM or publicly, here. Whatever you prefer.
Thanks!!
Truly you made my day...
Thanks so much, and just wait until Chapter Three where we learn that the ONLY reason we have a Constitution was the Framers’ disgust and loathing of Americas’ first welfare program. I promise you it is true.
Oh, PLEASE leave a review on Amazon when you are done. Reviews are ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE important than mere sales.
Oh, please stop polluting us with inane self serving quotes.
I gave you the reason why i’m glad wiser man put in the BOR, and that still stands.
Do you think even for a microsecond that without them we would have the level of free speech we have, or gun rights?
Look at every other country, and that’s where we would be in terms of free speech, gun rights, etc., if we didn’t have the BOR.
If we didn’t have a BOR, we’d have the enumeration, which the FRAMERS!!!! thought was better. George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton...
Self-serving quotes??? You mean the words of THE FRAMERS??? Those quotes?
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.