Posted on 12/16/2008 12:15:09 AM PST by history_48
I agree with the premise of the historical record. However, I do have a bit of a hard time allowing that we need to take the Bill of Rights away from the people in the various states. It would seem a right best left untampered with in many cases.
I go further, and 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. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Sad when such an article can not even get the basic facts right .....
States rights issues were dealt a blow by Lincoln in the Civil War, unfortunately...
“Sad when such an article can not even get the basic facts right .....”
Yeah, I noticed that, as well.
“States rights issues were dealt a blow by Lincoln in the Civil War, unfortunately...”
Lincoln was vehemently opposed to states retaining any real sovereignty; he was strongly in favor of a large and all-powerful federal government, not a union of equal states as was the intent of the Founders. Lincoln was a despot, and his fellow Illinoisan who is set to take the oath of office on January 20, 2009 is, as well.
it is evident that [a bill of rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
IMHO that is what has happened with the First Amendment and the right of the people to spend their own money to avail themselves of technological means to promote their own (political, religious, and other) opinions.We have the spectacle of the members of a monopolistic organization, the Associated Press - an institution not even extant at the framing of the Bill of Rights nor even in the entire lifetime of James Madison (1751 1836) - declaring themselves alone to be "the press" protected by the First Amendment. And successfully promoting "campaign finance reform" laws to denigrate the rights of the rest of the people on that basis.
Each law more onerous than the last - and with the author of the latest, John McCain, announcing shortly after its passage that McCain-Feingold was not restrictive enough!
BTTT
BTTT!
McCain’s premise was that the people should be limited in the ways that they could corrupt “honest” politicians. He restricted the citizens far more than he increased the accountability of the politicians. It was a bill designed to protect politicians and restrict free speech.
I have no respect for John McCain. What he did to our laws negated the respect he earned from his military service. He’s just another opportunistic politician who craves media attention.
Think of the spot that puts liberals in. Objective news is one thing they would fight.
Mime,
Your point is well taken. The Federalists argued strenuously against the adoption of the "Bill of Rights" because they thought it was dangerous to enumerate such specificity in the constitution.
Seems that time has borne out both sides of the argument IMO. The Federalists were right that the government would take the stance that "anything not specifically prohibited is allowed". At the same time, the Anti-Federalists were right that without at least those guarantees listed, that government power would get out of hand because there would effectively be no restraints on it.
You see both sides still argued here today on this board of those who think a "right to privacy" is just a "made up" right because it isn't listed in print, and those who point to the 9th and 10th amendments as showing that we have many more rights as human beings that exist whether they are specifically enumerated or now.
Personally, I'm glad the Anti-Federalists won the day. One thing I find to be interesting from a historical standpoint is that most folks know about the Federalist Papers, which were, among other things, an argument against the Bill of Rights, yet few are even aware of the Letters from a Federal Farmer, penned by those who ultimately carried the day.
In my coffee shop "bored meeting" I have been recently arguing that the Fairness Doctrine is welcome if it applies to all reported news as well.
Think of the spot that puts liberals in. Objective news is one thing they would fight.
The great problem is that when the fox is in charge of guarding the chicken coop, he defines "objectivity" for his own convenience. Which is exactly how they fight objectivity - by defining "objectivity" as whatever they want to say.No, the answer is that the government is not competent to define objectivity, and would not be constitutionally authorized to engage in censorship based on objectivity, even if it actually knew what it was.
Good point. that's just a symptom of general ignorance you'll find anywhere in America today. Ask someone about John Locke, and you'll get blank stares, yet it is entirely arguable that without his writings on government, there would be no American Revolution.
I'd ask that you ask those few you find that know about the Federalist Papers if they're familiar with Letters from a Federal Farmer.
People are woefully ignorant of history. We are certainly an illiterate bunch, and are apparently getting the government we deserve. Those of us who've actually learned from the past can see it coming back around to us. For most of my life I've feared my children will live in a nightmarish existance brought about by the tyranny of the majority. i used to have some hope that the day of reckoning could be avoided or turned aside, I no longer think there is any way to avoid the evil that is coming.
I’ve been looking at the Letters at Constitution.org.
I started donating to the site just last month; it’s a treasury of information.
Next week will see the Founder’s Quotes thread quoting from one of those letters and sourcing it to the rest of the letters.
Is there any letters that you favor?
AND....are you on our ping list for Founders’ Quotes?
bump
might be of interest ping...
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.