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

To: mrsmith
Madison on the Bill of Rights prior to it's adoption:

But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. ...But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. ...It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict. I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

Seems to me he is more worried about the state government and the community at large and his reason is that the feds had few enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.

49 posted on 01/01/2004 1:18:14 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Nanodik
Madison spoke those words before the BOR was even drawn up. He was making a motion to get the House of Representatives to consider drawing up these amendments. And yes, he did initially intend to have some provisions apply to the states, but that idea was explicitly rejected. In fact, it would be instructive to look at his proposed amendments. This is a link to the passage you quoted. It includes his proposed amendments. Lets look at these provisions in particular:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

"No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. "

Now, if the two on top applied to all levels of government, there would have been no need to repeat them below. Hence, Madison, as well as everyone else in Congress, understood that unless the states were explicitly mentioned, general prohibitions on power contained in the Constitution applied to the federal government only.
52 posted on 01/01/2004 1:47:14 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Nanodik
That is a very misleading excerpt of Madison's speech, HERE is a complete transcript.
"the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done" is the heart of his speech and of the entire debate on the Bill of Rights.

Madison did propose some limitations on the state governments for the Bill of Rights:
"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community.
I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controlled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. "(from the same speech)

But they were quickly removed in the congress and were never even offered for ratification.

Some people say that Madison was just playing politics " nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed" (sticking it to the anti-federalists!), I don't know. Later he would certainly not want the federal government courts to have such power, but at the time he was quite the Federalist.

53 posted on 01/01/2004 2:03:15 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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