A little preview:
A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary. The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed.
The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land. Regarding firearms, for example, was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form. The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, therefore demanded that there be written a Bill of Rights. Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new constitution.
The founders, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists the new constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights. James Madison was asked to write and gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States that would make up the Bill of Rights.
Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal was narrowed down to twelve amendments. Only ten were ratified. Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.
The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny. These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution. With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens. Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected. It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined nor quantified. Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution. As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment.
Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have the power. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do. This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers. By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, “Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can’t do that?” Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment