Is the Bill of Rights a "disaster"?

The Washington Times | December 15, 2004 | Rick Lynch

[RayStacy]

Jefferson is speaking of the rights that are LISTED in a BOR. Yes, he is saying, the BOR isn't always going to restrain the G, and the BOR might actually slow down the G. when we really don't want it to, but it's still better than the alternative. But the Lynch article is dealing with those poor souls (rights) who were NOT listed. THAT is what we are talking about here, and Madison, not Jefferson, got it right. If you want to create a BOR it HAD BETTER BE ONE HUGE F%%%ING LIST. Otherwise, be prepared to have only a few rites.

[Chuckster]

And again, how is it that we coincidentally have ONLY those rites mentioned in the BOR?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we don't have any of the rights in the BOR anymore.

[RayStacy]

So true, I'm afraid.

[Darnright]

Bump

[Oztrich Boy]

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

No but they do cede the power to regulate interstate commerce, and, absent a Bill of Rights, that is adequate to allow a Government to do anything it wants to.

[rwfok]

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 that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.--James Madison, Speech for Amendments to the Constitution (1789)

[JOE43270]

The Second Amendent is the First Freedom because it guards the First Amendent.

[Mulder]

Actually, the "disaster" was the Constitution itself. (Read "Hologram of Liberty" by Kenneth Royce for this contrarian thesis.)

The Bill of Rights was about it's only positive virtue. And even then, the BOR are quite flawed.

[RayStacy]

I hope you're not saying that it LEGITIMATELY lets the G. do whatever it wants to. IF the people fall asleep, there are any of a dozen ways the g. can illegitimately seize power, of course.

[steamboat]

Good point. I was thinking Republican in the traditional sense, but there is no getting around the fact that we lost the states' rights battle long ago and portions of our Constitution have been wholly ignored by progressive activist judges...

[King Prout]

yes, that does seem kind of peculiar, doesn't it?
then again, most Americans cannot parse the Preamble to clearly understand the purpose of the Constitution itself.
sad, sad, sad.

[Wolfie]

I've read Hologram, great book. "Here are the rules. Unless we say otherwise". Colonists were suckers to fall for it.