• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does the Bill of Rights exist? (1 Viewer)

Because several states insisted that their ratification of the Constitution would be contingent upon the addition of an explicit bill of rights.
 
radcen said:
The people who wrote the Constitution apparently didn't think so.
Click to expand...

There were several that felt that should have been included from the beginning. Obviously they were correct as the COTUS would have never been ratified without them. So the BOR had two main purposes:
1: enable the COTUS to be ratified.
2: restrict the strong central government from becoming the tyrannical government from whom we had just broken away.

Most of these Bill of Rights were created in direct response to British actions during the colonial period.
 
radcen said:
Why does the Bill of Rights exist?

Purposely an open-ended question.
Click to expand...

I believe it exist as a restriction on the government.Being ruled by some inbred dictator from across the ocean left a bad taste in the mouths of our founding fathers regarding governments.So out founders wanted to restrict the government as much as possible.
 
Some of the Framers thought our rights were self evident, some thought listing a few would have future interpreters opine there are no other rights than those listed, (that is happening now). There was however enough people in key states who refused to vote for approval of the Constitution without at least the beginnings of a Rights List. It would be worth remembering state ratification was not a vote of the people but rather the gentry so it is amazing in and of itself there was opposition to the Constitution without listing at least a few basic rights for Everyman.
 
radcen said:
The people who wrote the Constitution apparently didn't think so.
Click to expand...

The people who wrote the Constitution were not the ones who wrote the Bill of Rights.

The righting of the Constitution took place over an incredibly grueling summer that George Washington presided over. They were closed door sessions, and they argued with each other relentlessly on how the Constitution should be written.

It was any wonder that the Framers were able to do what they did.

When James Madison sent a summary of the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson in Paris, who was serving as a minister-at-large to France, he was appalled that the Framers had not included a Bill of Rights to serve as protections against the federal government.

So this argument in the public over whether or not the Constitution as it was written was brought up. This was the fight between the Federalists, who were proponents of adopting the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who were against the adoption of the Constitution because it didn't provide enough protections for individual freedoms and liberties, and is the source of the Federalist Papers.

Finally, a compromise was struck between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists would agree to endorse the Constitution if the Federalists agreed to adopt a Bill of Rights afterward. The deal was struck and the Constitution was adopted without the Bill of Rights.

Once the first Congress was in session, James Madison, a Representative, took to the task of drafting the Bill of Rights. He took admissions of proposed rights to include in this from anyone, and all these he whittled down to about 80. Then they were down to 18. Then 12. Then 10.

Once Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, Congress debated it for some time but then agreed to pass it as per the agreement to adopt the Constitution.

My source for this?

iTunes - Podcasts - The Thomas Jefferson Hour by Clay Jenkinson
 
radcen said:
Why does the Bill of Rights exist?

Purposely an open-ended question.
Click to expand...

It promises us our natural born rights that were left out of the Constitution. It was only necessary so that later generations will not fall back into the days of Monarchial Tyranny.
 
Because it was a damn good idea.
 
Why does the Bill of Rights exist?
Click to expand...

Cause the infinitely great and all knowing Founding Fathers of Godly Persuasion, couldn't think far enough ahead to include it in the original document.
 
Because they wanted to make sure that the rights listed in it would not be violated.
 
Matt Foley said:
Cause the infinitely great and all knowing Founding Fathers of Godly Persuasion, couldn't think far enough ahead to include it in the original document.
Click to expand...

If you had a grasp of what actually went on at the time, you could have avoided saying something so dumb. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
Because of the difference between state governments and the federal government.
Click to expand...

I was just answering the question, because the existence of BoR's in state constitutions had an influence on the ratification process.
 
No time for an in-depth response but the key fact that everyone seems to be ignoring is that the Bill of Rights is simply the colloquial term for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The short answer is that some of the state representatives refused to accept the Constitution unless a so-called Bill of Rights was included in amendment. Many of the representatives did not want a Bill of Rights since it would suggest that the people only had certain defined rights but ultimately the protagonists gained the upper hand.

It seems to me that the Bill of Rights has been quite instrumental in the elimination of most individual rights, as contrarian as that sounds.
 
TNAR said:
It seems to me that the Bill of Rights has been quite instrumental in the elimination of most individual rights, as contrarian as that sounds.
Click to expand...

Well, it was instrumental in destroying the idea that the federal government was limited to its enumerated powers, which is why the original framers didn't want to include one.
 
American said:
I was just answering the question, because the existence of BoR's in state constitutions had an influence on the ratification process.
Click to expand...

I know. Just saying why they had them.

Shouldn't have been necessary for the federal government.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, it was instrumental in destroying the idea that the federal government was limited to its enumerated powers, which is why the original framers didn't want to include one.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Though only some of the framers did not desire a Bill of Rights. It would be interesting to hypothesize the results of a lack of BoR on the growth of the federal government. I tend to think that a lack of BoR would have done little to slow the growth.
 
From my very limited understanding, The original part of the constitution defines the framework
of a new form of government. A government whose power is derived from the people.
The Bill of Rights describes the other side of the relationship, the limits on how this new
government can interact with it's participant members.
 
TNAR said:
Definitely. Though only some of the framers did not desire a Bill of Rights. It would be interesting to hypothesize the results of a lack of BoR on the growth of the federal government. I tend to think that a lack of BoR would have done little to slow the growth.
Click to expand...

Well, you never know how things would have gone "but for." But what did happen is the Supreme Court eventually ruled, just as Madison and his cohort feared, that anything passed by Congress will be presumed Constitutional unless it violates a fundamental right (basically, those listed in the first 8 of the Bill of Rights).

Of course, Madison wanted the opposite, the strict adherence to the enumerated powers, which would never allow Congress to do anything the Bill of Rights proscribes.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, you never know how things would have gone "but for." But what did happen is the Supreme Court eventually ruled, just as Madison and his cohort feared, that anything passed by Congress will be presumed Constitutional unless it violates a fundamental right (basically, those listed in the first 8 of the Bill of Rights).

Of course, Madison wanted the opposite, the strict adherence to the enumerated powers, which would never allow Congress to do anything the Bill of Rights proscribes.
Click to expand...

Good thing Madison was only one citizen and not our all powerful dictator.
 
Many of the Anti-federalists objected to the Constitution as it was written. The Bill of Rights was put in to sway some of them over to the Federalist side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom