The Bill of Rights

[eyer]

Thomas Jefferson, 1816:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

A background on the reasons for the Bill of Rights:

The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected. As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10). The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a "parchment barrier." (Madison's preference at the Convention to safeguard liberties was by giving Congress an unlimited veto over state laws and creating a joint executive-judicial council of revision that could veto federal laws.) Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison's view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally--in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson--Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of individual rights against the other branches. When the First Congress met in 1789, James Madison, a congressman from Virginia, took upon himself the task of drafting a proposed Bill of Rights. He considered his efforts "a nauseous project." His original set of proposed amendments included some that were either rejected or substantially modified by Congress, and one (dealing with apportionment of the House) that was not ratified by the required three-fourths of the state legislatures. Some of the rejections were very significant, such as the decision not to adopt Madison's proposal to extend free speech protections to the states, and others somewhat less important (such as the dropping of Madison's language that required unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in all federal cases).

Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." Decades later, the Ninth Amendment would be pointed to by some judges, such as Justice Goldberg in his opinion in Griswold v Connecticut (a case recognizing a right of privacy that included a right to use contraceptives), as a justification for giving a broad and liberty-protective reading to the the specifically enumerated rights. Others, such as rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, would dismiss the Ninth Amendment as analogous to "an inkblot on the Constitution," a provision so unclear in its significance that judges should essentially read it out of the Constitution.

Most of the protections of the Bill of Rights eventually would be extended to state infringements as well federal infringements though the "doctrine of incorporation" beginning in the early to mid-1900s. The doctrine rests on interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as prohibiting states from infringing on the most fundamental liberties of its citizens.

In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There has just been opposition enough" to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential "energy." George Washington agreed: "They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html

It is interesting to note that only the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights guarantee individual liberties...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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.

It is vital to remember - especially in the guaranteed contentious constitutional days ahead - that if the people wish to deviate in any way from the specifically limited dictates of the Constitution, democratic voting is unconstitutional...

...for only Congress and the States' congresses can legally effect changes in the Constitution, and those bodies can only effect change through the Constitution's stated Amendment process; the peoples' effect is only measured through their influence on those government bodies to act - or not.

That America is a nation of law - where every person is subject equally under it - is only factual in the proportional reverence for the rule of law the Constitution represents including, of course, precisely following the Amendment dictates of that law when aiming to modify/repeal any of it.

America becomes a nation of men when men decide they are above the law and can modify/repeal the law in any other way except the legal option(s) provided by the law itself. In doing so, these men only champion a nation of tyrannical lawlessness.

Look over the above 8 Amendments to the Bill of Rights again and more exactly consider how many are being infringed - some radically infringed - today, and then ask yourself if law is more important to the future of America or is man's opinion on any issue the way America is to rule over its people.

Your answer automatically dictate's the side Nature assigns you to when the coming Constitutional War begins...

 

[run_silent]

Thomas Jefferson, 1816:



A background on the reasons for the Bill of Rights:



It is interesting to note that only the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights guarantee individual liberties...



It is vital to remember - especially in the guaranteed contentious constitutional days ahead - that if the people wish to deviate in any way from the specifically limited dictates of the Constitution, democratic voting is unconstitutional...

...for only Congress and the States' congresses can legally effect changes in the Constitution, and those bodies can only effect change through the Constitution's stated Amendment process; the peoples' effect is only measured through their influence on those government bodies to act - or not.

That America is a nation of law - where every person is subject equally under it - is only factual in the proportional reverence for the rule of law the Constitution represents including, of course, precisely following the Amendment dictates of that law when aiming to modify/repeal any of it.

America becomes a nation of men when men decide they are above the law and can modify/repeal the law in any other way except the legal option(s) provided by the law itself. In doing so, these men only champion a nation of tyrannical lawlessness.

Look over the above 8 Amendments to the Bill of Rights again and more exactly consider how many are being infringed - some radically infringed - today, and then ask yourself if law is more important to the future of America or is man's opinion on any issue the way America is to rule over its people.

Your answer automatically dictate's the side Nature assigns you to when the coming Constitutional War begins...

Very interesting.I'm more of the type that says the law is law. If you want to change a law it pass an amendment. Don't bend over backwards to say this is what the law really meant. If you have solid ground over an issue there is a way to change a law approved by a majority of the citizens/states.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Neither is more important than the other. If you must err in one direction though it should be in the direction of opinion not of law.

 

[hobbit.]

just thought I'd mention 'Freeborn John' here...

from http://sabhlokcity.com/tag/john-lilburne/ however, historical fact never did impress america..

We are all Levellers now – and we don’t even know whom to thank for it
On July 23, 2011, in Liberty, Philosophy, by Sanjeev Sabhlok


Being untrained in political thought (having learnt a little bit through readings incidental to my study of economics), I keep discovering new things all the time as I read snippets here and there.

I had read, in passing, about the Levellers, but did not appreciate their IMMENSE influence on modern political thought until I read the essay on John Lilburne by Jim Powell in his book, The Triumph of Liberty - a book about which I've commented a number of times by now. (Let me reiterate that Powell's is a MANDATORY bedside book for all liberals. It is large but very readable, being divided into 64 chapters which deal with 64 key thinkers and doers of liberty. I read one or two snippets from it periodically when I get the time, in between the fifteen other half open books by my bedside.)

Powell's essay on John Lilburne is extremely powerful and evocative. John Lilburne suffered greatly for his forthright ideas on liberty (even Oliver Cromwell, who was instrumental in saving his life once, found his egalitarian views intolerable). He was fined, whipped, pilloried, tried for treason, sedition, controversy, libel. He was imprisoned in the Tower, Newgate, Tyburn, and the Castle [Source]. The abolition of the Star Chambers was entirely due to John Lilburne's work. He died at the young age of 43, weakened by the many tortures inflicted on his body by the English king AND Parliament.

But before that he had written tens of pamphlets and entirely changed (along with John Milton and others) the beliefs among the common people of England about who they were (namely, sovereign individuals, not 'subjects' of a king). Without John Lilburne having established the foundations of liberty, John Locke could not have emerged.

I cite from Powell: "He championed private property, free trade, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a rule of law, a separation of powers, and a written constitution to limit government power. Lilburne helped to bring these dynamic ideas together for the first time in history."

you might want to give thanks to him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[hobbit.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mVvMopn2os

oneway of life....

 

[eyer]

In regard to Individual rights, this from Heller:

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

Just sayin'.

"Just sayin'"...

...what?

You didn't "say" anthing...

...you just c&p'd.

 

[eyer]

you might want to give thanks to him.

Only the truly naïve...

...would champion giving thanks to any one man.

Just sayin'...

 

[sufisaint]

It seems the Democrats have taken a huge lead in the hating of individual liberties these days.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

=John Lilburne suffered greatly for his forthright ideas on liberty (even Oliver Cromwell, who was instrumental in saving his life once, found his egalitarian views intolerable).

Not the same thing, of course.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."

-- John Randolph of Roanoke

 

[XdOu™]

interesting..

 

[eyer]

C&Ped a correction to your 1 thru 8 assertion, that's all. Should be 1 thru 9. I probably should have included a Dick & Jane approach to the explanation. Sorry.

Could you provide another of your "Just sayin"" deals on Dred Scott v. Sanford next?

 

[KingOrfeo]

C&Ped a correction to your 1 thru 8 assertion, that's all. Should be 1 thru 9. I probably should have included a Dick & Jane approach to the explanation. Sorry.

See Dick bear arms.

See Tom call Dick's Mom a ho'.

See Tom die.

See Jane get nervous.

See Jane try to implement gun-control legislation.

See Dick get mad.

See Dick shoot at Jane and kill Spot.

See the whole business repeat ad infinitum.

 

[oxphocker]

So what exactly is the point that the OP trying to make? Is this some whack-a-doo conservative statement about the 2nd amendment and gun control? Or am I missing something?

 

[eyer]

It seems the Democrats have taken a huge lead in the hating of individual liberties these days.

The great majority of "Democrats" (aka by the modern bastardization of the tag liberals, and now progressives) are natural-born socialists, thus wannabe communists, thus statists (to some degree) all...

...individual liberty is the Natural enemy of those utopians of the collective.

The cultural skirmishes over abortion, gay marriage, et all are simply flashes of the main advance...

...the collective is now in the process of intensifying its march by upgrading from those cultural skirmishes to actual attacks on the very supremacy of the rule of law of this great land.

But the Constitution isn't the acme of the statists' all-conquering quest...

...for as long as just one lives who reveres individual liberty above all else on this earth, the collective's war on mankind can never be sated.

It's simply about whether America's foundational vision of individual liberty for all can ever be realized, even with all the statist obstacles having been lain before it...

...or whether freedom is not an eternal Natural right of all men, but simply the grant of whomever is in power at any time as the statists inherently maintain.

America's Revolutionary War completely changed the political landscape of the world...

...the coming Constitutional War will simply be history judging where America stands today.

...

 

[eyer]

Or am I missing something?

I'd say that's your very best guess...

...of course, you'd get even closer if you made it plural.

 

[MidgetClown]

 

[oxphocker]

It was rhetorical... See the whack-a-doo portion of my previous statement for clarification.

"The great majority of "Democrats" (aka by the modern bastardization of the tag liberals, and now progressives) are natural-born socialists, thus wannabe communists, thus statists (to some degree) all...

...individual liberty is the Natural enemy of those utopians of the collective.

The cultural skirmishes over abortion, gay marriage, et all are simply flashes of the main advance..."

Must be awfully cramped living in that bunker everyday waiting for all the gay people to turn you gay too... For someone claiming to protect freedoms and dissing liberals for not doing so it's funny that abortion, gay marriage, and almost anything else you can come up should be issues of personal freedom, yet oddly the conservative establishment seems to think there is a societal imperative that needs to be followed which would be completely at odds with your comments that liberals are the ones who are totally statist. Also the thing about all dems automatically being socialists/communists is pretty tired and lame, I think they tried that in the 1950's with HUAC...didn't work out so well then, doesn't now.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

It was rhetorical... See the whack-a-doo portion of my previous statement for clarification.

"The great majority of "Democrats" (aka by the modern bastardization of the tag liberals, and now progressives) are natural-born socialists, thus wannabe communists, thus statists (to some degree) all...

...individual liberty is the Natural enemy of those utopians of the collective.

The cultural skirmishes over abortion, gay marriage, et all are simply flashes of the main advance..."

Must be awfully cramped living in that bunker everyday waiting for all the gay people to turn you gay too... For someone claiming to protect freedoms and dissing liberals for not doing so it's funny that abortion, gay marriage, and almost anything else you can come up should be issues of personal freedom, yet oddly the conservative establishment seems to think there is a societal imperative that needs to be followed which would be completely at odds with your comments that liberals are the ones who are totally statist. Also the thing about all dems automatically being socialists/communists is pretty tired and lame, I think they tried that in the 1950's with HUAC...didn't work out so well then, doesn't now.

Hey, Tony...

...if you still hold the key, can you let this fish out of the sardine can he's confined in?

 

[oxphocker]

So when you have no real comeback to someone calling you on your bullshit, you try to come up with something clever?

 

[KingOrfeo]

...the coming Constitutional War will simply be history judging where America stands today.

That goes on continuously in the courts and at the ballot box. Do you seriously expect one fought with guns?

 

[eyer]

That goes on continuously in the courts and at the ballot box. Do you seriously expect one fought with guns?

The Constitution cannot be legally amended by either court or ballot box, so the choice of eventually having to face the gun is completely yours to make...

...you socialist piece of sh!t:

No, only the Second Amendment needs to be discarded.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42859732&postcount=200

Better "socialist" than "originalist."

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=41191718&postcount=33

 

[coastal-boy]

C&Ped a correction to your 1 thru 8 assertion, that's all. Should be 1 thru 9. I probably should have included a Dick & Jane approach to the explanation. Sorry.

Everyone should record this date in History...Vette is right for a change.