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
Oh, and James Madison put the BOR in the Cons to fool the Anti-Federalists. Another quotation from the book “From Parchment to Power”
Madison “carefully crafted the Bill to CHANGE NOT ONE SINGLE WORD of the original Constitution.”
gosh man....time for a chill pill. :)
So you fault them for later generations ignoring their set of rules? That makes zero sense. You could say the same thing about any other Amendment, or even the entire Constitution, if later generations ignore those too. Look at all of the nations that tried to copy ours, and had nothing close to the same success.
Spying on campaign, hoax impeachments, Wuhan Coup flu stolen election, targeted lawfare.
Wonder what the Founders would say about the long train of abuses the Bill of Rights and Constitution has allowed in the Govt of the Swamp, by the Swamp, for the Swamp, since just 2016.
I almost always get into flame wars, not to change the mind of the opponent, but to influence the mind of all the other readers.....like RIGHT NOW.
Keep up the good work. Sorry for the resistance you’re getting. I see your work as very good.
The Bill of VERY FEW Rights is, to this very day, highly respected. If not for the BOR, the Enumeration of ONE BILLION RIGHTS would receive that respect. At least that’s what THE FRAMERS thought.
The Framers would say, correctly, that the American people have fallen asleep at the switch and have forfeited their liberties.
Nothing in the Constitution could ever save them.
The old saying, “You get the government you deserve.”
Thank you so much. I knew it was coming. So sad about people.
Read the introduction to my book at Amazon before buying. I think the questions it raises will intrigue you, though we’ve already covered question 1 from the intro.
Thank God we have the Declaration of Independence on the Oval Office Wall..
Best to win the Revolution against the 3 Swamp Branches from the Oval Office than from without..
Sadly that does not keep the G. from taking 100 trillion dollars every two seconds and giving it to Somali day care centers or Sri Lanka newspaper people.
You didn’t answer my question...
“Do you think even for a microsecond that without them we would have the level of free speech we have, or gun rights?”
I voted in 2024 for obliteration and draining.
Obliteration of Somali pirates operating freely in and out of Swamp govt is implied.
This. Failure of one part of the Constitution does not mean the other parts are worthless.
We just need to FIX the broken part. There is nothing wrong in having “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” being added to the Constitution.
Absolutely: those rights and a billion others, not a few others.
The people are asleep, it is true, and it is the BOR that helped them fall asleep.
“Oh, Biden just took my money and gave it to Sri Lanka newspaper people? Well, at least he didn’t suppress a church! The BOR is respected, and that is all that matters.”
Sadly I was thinking about this last night when Trump promised to replace Obamacare and protect Social Security, yes I understand Trump is being pragmatic, but nonetheless its an open admission our Government is the antithesis of the one created by our Founders.
“Absolutely: those rights and a billion others, not a few others.”
You’re delusional if you believe that. Then you believe the 10th amendment would have done that.
The tenth lists NO rights, powers, or authorities, unlike the Enumeration.
What makes you think that the Enumeration would be ignored and forgotten if not for the BOR?
Why is the BOR not ignored or forgotten?
Why do the swamp creatures for the most part leave it alone?
Because they’re ignoring the 10th,which is just as part of the constitution as the enumerated.
They’re even blatantly eating away at the first and second despite the explicit prohibition to do so!
So if they blatantly ignore all law and do what they want when they want, what’s the point of any of it?
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.