Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

"We probably would do better to quote the First Amendment exactly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thanks for posting. I like it so much, I posted it again!

And to think one of the founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights weren't necessary, since they were "obvious" from the rest of the Constitution. I shudder to think of what this nation would be like without them.

What is "obvious" changes over time.


139 posted on 01/19/2007 4:01:02 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner (Here's an experiment for God's existence: Ask Him to contact you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: Forgiven_Sinner
And to think one of the founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights weren't necessary, since they were "obvious" from the rest of the Constitution.
One of the founding fathers? Try, "the majority of the Constitutional Convention." Had it been otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been in the body of the text rather than in amendments to it.
I shudder to think of what this nation would be like without them.

What is "obvious" changes over time.

A SCOTUS justice will talk a good fight about recognizing that the framers considered that the Bill of Rights was redundant - that the body of the text is to be interpreted as implying everything that the Bill of Rights states explicitly - and more.

The objection to a Bill of Rights was that it would be interpreted as limiting the rights of the people to only those things explicitly mentioned. Hence, the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It can therefore be argued that whenever an appeal is made to the Bill of Rights it is a shortcut, and that the proper jurisprudence of the Constitution should not even require reference to the Bill of Rights, which should properly be labelled a Bill of Some of the Rights of the People and the States.

The question (the historical counterfactual) is, whether the rights of the people and of the states would have been as much respected without the "Bill of Rights" there as essentially a list of things which are not in the Constitution? The example of Jefferson buying Louisiana without specific constitutional warrant does not make us sanguine about that . . .


142 posted on 01/19/2007 6:38:36 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson