If the constitution was created solely to outline the powers of the federal government, was it neccessary to include rights of citizens?
Instead of including the rights of citizens, why not just exclude any powers to the federal government that would interfere with those rights?
Was it to keep states from interfering with these rights?
Or perhaps to keep any new amendments from interfering with these rights as well?
See, I can’t say too much about this substitute religion of Constitutional Idolatry that is now so popular in America, but there are people who patiently read every one of the private letters and documents of people who wrote the constituting document, and even they end up in 300 minds about the original intention of that document.
Who is to say what was the intentions of people from nearly 200 years ago? Human communication is about people creating an understanding in each others minds, and is always a perpetual process of writing, speaking, giving feedback, and clarifying, and only a limited effort is made towards precision of one’s thoughts. There is never an understanding of a written statement independent of one’s own perceptions. In the end, all that is written is nothing.
we did not need a bill of rights… its not like the government actually follows the constitution anyway…
Considering that politicians are rather dexterous at skirting regulations, I think we’re much better off with a Bill of Rights than a few additional clauses in the Constitution itself exclude the powers of government from doing such and such. During the Constitutional Debates, I think many of the Federalists argued a similar line of reasoning - that anything in the Bill of Rights is already inferred from the delegation of powers in the Constitution. Personally, I’d much rather have everything explicitly written down on paper, because as was already mentioned, the federal government already has a reputation for ignoring the Constitution when it’s convenient. At least with everything written down, it’s that much easier for the citizens to hold politicians accountable, regardless of whether they choose to do so or not. I think the Anti-Federalists were basically following a similar line of thought - don’t assume anything and make sure everything is written down.
It’s funny though how the 2nd amendment, which is the shortest one of the whole bunch, is one of the most controversial of them all. I read a story a while back of a man from Colorado who was licensed to own a handgun, but is facing serious jail time because he moved to New Jersey, was caught by the police with the guns in his possession (actually, they were securely locked in the trunk of his car), and had not yet received his Jersey carrying permit. Yet the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, with or without a license. The article as written seems to imply the judge had some serious issues, too.
One could go on about nearly every single amendment, but just think of what kind of mess it would really be if there was no Bill of Rights to begin with! Whether or not the government actually follows them is one thing, but at least we have the evidence to back up our protests.
The Constitution was an awful document from the start. I think we’re better off with a bill of Rights than without, but i wouldn’t be surprised if the Constitution is amended further to take away our rights.
“In the end, all that is written is nothing.”
Why do you bother posting here, then?
The Bill of Rights doesn’t state the rights of the citizens.
That’s what the Bill of Rights did.
No.
No.
Lookup Tom Woods for more information.
Hello all. This is my first time replying to anything on this site, although I visit it quite often.
The Constitution was intended to tell the federal government what it was allowed to do. It was assumed that, if it was not mentioned in the document, the federal government did not have that power. It was not intended to limit the states in any real way. The Bill of Rights was not meant to apply to the states, but the federal government. Each state had it’s own Bill of Rights and its own Constitution that applied within that state’s borders.
After the passage of the 14th amendment, after the Civil War, the Supreme Court has slowly applied a majority to the Bill of Rights to the states, under the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment.