Posted on 12/15/2004 10:34:15 AM PST by RayStacy
It may be that every American "knows" the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights as a guarantor of various liberties, and this belief may be so deeply ingrained in the national psyche that virtually every famous political actor in the country has attested to the framers' wisdom in their crafting of the great bill, but the plain, historical and undeniable fact of the matter is the framers overwhelmingly rejected any notion of a bill of rights. When the proposal was put forth during the Constitutional Convention, only two men of 55 spoke in favor of the measure, and the state delegations rejected the idea unanimously.
And the bill didn't fare much better with the men of the First Congress, who approved the amendments only because of crushing pressure from Anti-Federalist factions. Respected constitutional scholar Robert Goldwin notes the House was almost "unanimously opposed" to the amendments; and that the bill's sponsor was told of these feelings "in terms that were caustic, scornful, and even derisive." The framers were convinced that such a bill would actually rob Americans of their rights, not protect them. And they were correct, for as Alexander Hamilton said: "I affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous." Unnecessary? Dangerous? How, exactly? When the framers wrote our Constitution, their strategy for safeguarding liberty against government encroachment was really quite simple they would list, specify and detail the few and defined rights of the federal government. All the uncountable, innumerable scores of rights and powers not found on this small list were off limits to the federal government and were retained by the people. As every good conservative knows, this list the framers referred to is the "enumeration," and it is contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. At this point the framers directed their critics who bemoaned the absence of a bill of rights to the enumeration and noted, quite logically, that since the enumeration contained no provision for the federal government to assail cherished liberties, those rights were already protected. A bill of rights was unnecessary because the rights so loved in our Bill of Rights were already protected, were already completely off limits to federal authority. Nowhere in the enumeration do the people cede to the government the power to regulate the press, thus the federal government has no authority whatsoever to do so, or to suppress free speech, or establish a church, or seize firearms. The logic and simplicity of their reasoning are undeniable. We now see why the bill was unnecessary. But why, exactly, was it "dangerous?" Though Madison and Hamilton penned virtually the same words, James Wilson, Pennsylvania delegate to the convention, said it best: "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." This, of course, is the sad situation in which we now live. A huge majority of Americans and our legislators believe that the federal government may legislate on any topic, at any time, for any reason, period so long as the legislation does not offend the Bill of Rights. We used to have all the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, plus untold scores of others. Now, as the framers predicted, we have only those rights contained in the Bill of Rights. This is a disaster, not a blessing. The world the framers gave us (government's powers limited to a small list) is entirely different from the world given by the Bill of Rights (people's powers limited to a small list). These two worlds are mutually exclusive. They represent, with mathematical precision, exact and precise diametric opposites. One is the antithesis of the other. The world the framers gave us is not diminished by the Bill of Rights, it is not marginalized; it is utterly and absolutely destroyed. These two visions simply cannot exist side by side. One must die, and indeed, one did. Others will blame any of a dozen different reasons for our lost rights, but can it really be a coincidence that the only rights we have left are found in the Bill of Rights? Can it?
Rick Lynch, a writer living in Virginia, discusses constitutional issues in his forthcoming book, "They Are Vicious... :How Democracy and the Bill of Rights destroyed the U.S. Constitution."
I am sure it is a disaster to those who oppose the rights stated so plainly. It is certainly a disaster to the courts who try to interpret those rights because there really is no interpretation needed.
That's not how I read it. This guy LOVES those rights just like you and I do, but he is saying that we now have ONLY those rights, and that the enumeration has been lost because of the BOR.
As they say, winning an election isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing.
It's not like they didn't recognize the problem.
I believe the Constitutions of each State can be found at Avalon.com.
Please note also, that many of the ideas of our founders evolved as they went through the process and one has to be careful in expounding on just one statement within that process of compromise.
There are still ramifications for intended or unintended consequences of speech. Like a gun, it is legal to own but if you shoot someone you pay.
No we don't. Every amendment of the BoR save the 3rd has been ignored. The only reason the 3rd is still around is because government doesn't want troops in your house. And if they wanted that they'd get it just as fast as SCOTUS could say "compelling state interest".
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.
Apparently the author didn't read through the end of the BoR.
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.
I disagree that the BoR has been a failure. Government was going to disregard the concepts of enumeration and federalism anyway. The BoR served to slow down the inevitible assault on some of the more important rights. Think of how many court cases have sprung from it. Without the BoR, we wouldn't even have those.
Correct.
The cons was voted on, ratified, and was law of the land WITHOUT a BOR. The BOR came a year later.
Let's put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!!
They DEFINITELY did recognize the problem. It's just a damn shame that outside of this website, only 4 people on the globe know of the 9th and 10th amends, and/or the enumeration.
I can see how democracy is destroying the Constitution, but not the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps only those allowed under federal law. State laws are a different matter. Just like a warranty.
In those days a solemn promise was a solemn promise ~ you shouldn't use today's standards to judge the founders.
Ahh, but imagine a world without a BOR. Without a BOR, EVERYBODY, liberal, consevative, fat, thin, etc., would be more or less forced to know of the enumeration or else they would be forced to believe we have NO rites at all. Without a BOR we would still have had 10,000 court cases dealing with "Where are our rites? How are they protected? What may the G. NOT do to me?" Maybe, (I certainly don't know) but maybe, the people would have been forced to know of the enumeration, and we'd have all the rites in the BOR, plus a million others.
Well, the enumeration WAS the most important part of the CONS. Destroy the enumeration, destroy the cons.
Most people (especially Conservatives, [who ought to know better!]), seem to think that the Bill Of Rights gives them rights.
Example people claim: "The Second Amendment gives me the right to carry my gun into...."
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.