Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)
During the hot summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, some of the delegates at the Constitutional convention advocated a list of individual rights within the document they were creating. However, the Convention opposed this idea because they thought that such a list might be subject to abuse. Specifically, they intended to form a new government on the principle that all rights exist with the people who voluntarily grant the Federal government specific powers defined in the Constitution. The Founders wished for a government with powers confined by narrowly defined limits. Congress divided, separated, and balanced powers to prevent tyranny.
James Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution” and he, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, wrote 85 “Federalist Papers.” The Federalist, written and published in the New York press after the Convention (1787-88) made the case to the States to ratify the Constitution. Madison, in Federalist No. 84 wrote “… The Constitution is itself, in every sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.”
Those who advocated a Constitution without a Bill of Rights point to the Preamble which states, “... the People of the United States … secure the Blessings of Liberty ...” Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights further reflects the Framers belief in the rights of the people. Specifically, Amendments One, Two, Four, Nine, and Ten all invoke “the people.” Amendment Five states, “No person,” and Six “the accused.”
The people against the new Constitution were “Anti-Federalists.” They believed that an overarching Federal government would eventually lead to tyranny and the famous Patrick Henry was among this group. Thomas Jefferson who was in France during the Convention also expressed some reservations about the new Constitution. Henry and Jefferson were among those who advocated the addition of a “Bill of Rights.” Jefferson wrote, “I … hope a bill of rights will be formed, to guard the people against the federal government.” It is important to note that those who advocated a Bill of Rights and those at the Convention both wanted to guard the people against the government.
The delegates signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, without a Bill of Rights. The Constitution became law September 13, 1788, as this is the date that the required ninth State accepted it. While the Constitution originally did not have a Bill of Rights, the Framers cooperated in the development of such a list and they made it one of their first tasks in the new Congress. It was not until 1791 that Congress adopted the Bill of Rights and the remaining States each accepted (ratified) the Constitution.
One proposal was for the new Congress to enact a statute, rather than amendments to the Constitution. However, there was a concern that a future Congress may repeal such a statute. Under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, there were 200 proposals on basic rights gathered from the states. This list narrowed down to 12 then 10. On December 15, 1791, Congress ratified the Bill of Rights as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.
While we refer to these Amendments as the Bill of Rights, some scholars rightfully claim these to be “brakes” on the power of the Federal Government. For handy reference, the following are the Ten Amendments (emphasis added):
History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government. — Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.
Today, it seems the phrase “the people” (Amendments One, Two, Four, Nine, and Ten), “No person” (Amendment Five), and “the accused” (Amendment Six) each means something entirely different to certain people. Is this an anomaly or is it modernist planned confusion?
James Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution” and he, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, wrote 85 “Federalist Papers.” The Federalist, written and published in the New York press after the Convention (1787-88) made the case to the States to ratify the Constitution. Madison, in Federalist No. 84 wrote “… The Constitution is itself, in every sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.”
Those who advocated a Constitution without a Bill of Rights point to the Preamble which states, “... the People of the United States … secure the Blessings of Liberty ...” Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights further reflects the Framers belief in the rights of the people. Specifically, Amendments One, Two, Four, Nine, and Ten all invoke “the people.” Amendment Five states, “No person,” and Six “the accused.”
The people against the new Constitution were “Anti-Federalists.” They believed that an overarching Federal government would eventually lead to tyranny and the famous Patrick Henry was among this group. Thomas Jefferson who was in France during the Convention also expressed some reservations about the new Constitution. Henry and Jefferson were among those who advocated the addition of a “Bill of Rights.” Jefferson wrote, “I … hope a bill of rights will be formed, to guard the people against the federal government.” It is important to note that those who advocated a Bill of Rights and those at the Convention both wanted to guard the people against the government.
The delegates signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, without a Bill of Rights. The Constitution became law September 13, 1788, as this is the date that the required ninth State accepted it. While the Constitution originally did not have a Bill of Rights, the Framers cooperated in the development of such a list and they made it one of their first tasks in the new Congress. It was not until 1791 that Congress adopted the Bill of Rights and the remaining States each accepted (ratified) the Constitution.
One proposal was for the new Congress to enact a statute, rather than amendments to the Constitution. However, there was a concern that a future Congress may repeal such a statute. Under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, there were 200 proposals on basic rights gathered from the states. This list narrowed down to 12 then 10. On December 15, 1791, Congress ratified the Bill of Rights as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.
While we refer to these Amendments as the Bill of Rights, some scholars rightfully claim these to be “brakes” on the power of the Federal Government. For handy reference, the following are the Ten Amendments (emphasis added):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 offense 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.
- 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 defense.
- 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, then according to the rules of the common law.
- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- 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.
History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government. — Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.
Today, it seems the phrase “the people” (Amendments One, Two, Four, Nine, and Ten), “No person” (Amendment Five), and “the accused” (Amendment Six) each means something entirely different to certain people. Is this an anomaly or is it modernist planned confusion?
No comments:
Post a Comment