Posted on 01/01/2004 3:49:02 AM PST by sopwith
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I 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.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X 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.
And I think you do realize that their rejecting Madison's limits on the states makes it ludicrous to say they didn't.
And that Jefferson advocated to Madison a BOR for the federal government, not a federal one for Virginia.
Break out a book and read up on the era ( Patrick Henry detested any and every power of the federal government over the states! Marshall and Madison argued with him and Mason over every federal power at the Virginia Ratification Convention), discussions on Free Republic got me to fit in an occasional book on our founding and founders.
It's so much more interesting a subject now that I'm a grandfather than it was when I was a schoolboy.
I just finished one on Madison's retirement after his presidency. His biggest frustration? -That people were disregarding what the meaning of the Constitution had been to those who had written and ratified it!
Personally, I would have objected to the wording here not because it is too broad, as you suggest, but rather because it is too narrow. The fact that is says "no state" could be interpreted as to exempt the federal govt. My argument here may not be with your reading of the founding father's intentions, but with the founding fathers themselves. I have not read enough on the founding of the constitution and the BOR to say for sure, but the way I see it, if the BOR were to guarantee rights of the individual over all levels of govt, it would be an empowerment of the individual over govt rather than an empowerment of the federal govt over the states. I do believe that Jefferson would not have objected to binding all levels of government with one document. I am not sure others would have agreed.
As for the Barron case, the Supreme Court has had the duty of interpreting the constitution for two hundred some years now and in that time has made plenty of specious arguments. The recent case regarding McCain-Feingold is a perfect example of what judicial inbreeding will get you. I sincerely believe you can find far more convincing arguments in forums like this one than in the hollowed chambers of those black-robed megalomaniacs.
We need to spread that far and wide. Or is America past the point of caring? Much of FR seems to be.
BTW, I heard that some California farmers were forced to "quarter" national guard troops who were searching for marijuana. Have no clue as the the veracity of that one, though.
If some amendments say "Congress shall not...", it seems obvious that the founders intended that as a restriction on the U.S. Congress alone, not the state governments.
Other amendments clearly apply to all levels of government.
I chalk this apparent oversight up to political infighting among the founders, many of whom wanted no restrictions on the states.
Aside: Mr. Paine, the way you quote back excerpts from various posts is very confusing. You might want to consider italicizing the quotebacks or using a different font or something. I can't figure out which are the quotes and which is your responses to them.
Only the first line of the 1st amendment is so intended. -- Just as Jon Roland explained:
"If we examine the debate in the First Congress more closely, however, it seems clear that the restriction to "Congress" in the article that was to become the First Amendment (when proposed, it was the third) was only intended as a prudential tactic to avoid opposition to its ratification from the many states that then had "establishments of religion", mainly in the form of taxes that were more or less fairly distributed to at least churches of most protestant denominations in the state.
Within a few years after adoption of the Bill of Rights on December 17, 1791, every state that had "established" religion had either adopted their own constitutional amendments disestablishing religion, or simply discontinued the practice. But the language of the First Amendment remained.
Other amendments clearly apply to all levels of government.
I chalk this apparent oversight up to political infighting among the founders, many of whom wanted no restrictions on the states.
Exactly.. -- It makes no sense that the rest of the 1st amendments restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, & petition would appy only to the fed congess.. -- The "right of the people" to assemble is even specified.
Aside: Mr. Paine, the way you quote back excerpts from various posts is very confusing. You might want to consider italicizing the quotebacks or using a different font or something. I can't figure out which are the quotes and which is your responses to them.
Sorry bout that, but I do try to keep every separate post labled by name & number.. -- Html is a clunky system..
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.