The Constitution was put into operation on March 4 1789. It wasn't until six months later, September 25, 1789 that the Bill of Rights were finally drafted and submitted for ratification. THEN those first ten Amendments to the Constitution (Bill of Rights) were not passed for 2 years 2 months, and 20 days!
The Constituiton actually passed and without the Bill of Rights! There was no sellout!
What was dumb was putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in the first place, because why would it need a listed bill of Rights to prohibit the government to do, what it had no enumerated power to do in the first place? In fact the inclusion of the Bill of Rights has served as the excuse for the government to do what it had no authority to do, and as an invitation to alter our rights, and get government into the business of policing rights!
That Bill of Rights has served as a corruption, and Alexander Hamilton got it entirely correct in Federalist #84 when he wrote the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but it was "dangerous":
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
To paraphrase what Hamilton indicated in #84, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would serve as a “colorable pretext”, or an excuse, for government to claim as powers those Rights actually stipulated in the Bill of Rights, and indeed Hamilton has been vindicated because this is precisely what our own history has shown.
In fact, by the very existence of the Bill of Rights within the constitution, many believe they are grants therefrom, and can easily be amended, as describe in Article V.
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights instead of being our salvation, has proven time and time again, to be the means of our destruction.
Our government was meant to be shackled by those limited enumerated powers, and never meant to be allowed into the business of “Rights”, as those rights specifically and implicitly are recognized to protect us from government itself, and never as any sort of “demand license” to be used against our fellow citizens, as it is abused now. For example, the idea that a community must accept a Mosque in its midst, along with the repeated call to prayer, simply because of the 1st Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion”, should be utterly ridiculous. Similarly the idea that our schools must be turned into litigation battlegrounds for expectant “free speech”, should be equally ridiculous, but then neither should those schools be zones of compelled indoctrination. What happened is the government used the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a “colorable pretext” to imply it was in the business of policing rights, and by government’s selective choosing, the provision of rights, when rights were designed to specifically protect from that government itself, and to prohibit just such actions!
From those rights, we see the federal government taking that “freedom of the press”, and believing it might even now, recently, just as Hamilton warned, have a “power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it”, to define who and what constitute that press, so as to limit that protection, and afford the federal government protection from it, giving the law the Orwellian title of “Media Shield law” (Hamilton seems prescient here); or cherry-picking what is not an undue “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms, with the Court even arguing in current precedent that these 2nd Amendment rights do not apply to the States. All of these acts, and more, use that very Bill of Rights as just such a “colorable pretext” to provide excuse that those rights can be further defined, and even might be Amended as indicated in Article V, even to be entirely annulled!
This all involves the federal government believing its job is to police those Rights, from the “colorable pretext” of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights itself, when those rights are specifically to protect against that federal government. How far we have allowed this country to be dragged from our Founder’s vision.
Only in April of 2014, retired Justice Stevens published a book entitled "Six Amendments" , and it all involves changing the Bill of Rights, and denying a portion of our freedoms, including the right of every individual to keep and bear arms, and does so ENTIRELY BASED ON THE INCLUSION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the invitation this provided for government to manipulate, police and doll us out our rights!
Those rights are not actually grants from the Constitution itself, only partially listed within that document, so they cannot be amended there!
Even Lincoln's attack on the South, and the entire Civil War, was predicated on the belief that the government has the authority to protect, not just the Union, but to police the rights of the citizens, all from the inclusion of that Bill of Rights in the Constitution, when those rights are exclusively recognized there to prohibit any and all government action in their regard!
The Bill of Rights has actually been used to enslave us, rather than to keep us free.
Every time we reference our "Second Amendment right" to keep and bear arms, rather than just our unalienable right to keep and bear arms, we have given away what is unalienable, and are mentally showing that our belief that the Bill of Rights actually provides us those rights. By such ignorant references, we have given our tacit consent to already being slaves, not just becoming slaves.
Every bit of our history supports the corruption of our rights by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
The feds were not making new state laws, but then if the State laws could overrule and deny your unalienable rights, then those rights you claim are so important, are meaningless! . The founders themselves recognized that "whenever ANY FORM of government" no longer protects those rights, not just when the federal government does so.
"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
.
By TJ McCann
The Constituiton actually passed and without the Bill of Rights! There was no sellout!
What was dumb was putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in the first place, because why would it need a listed bill of Rights to prohibit the government to do, what it had no enumerated power to do in the first place? In fact the inclusion of the Bill of Rights has served as the excuse for the government to do what it had no authority to do, and as an invitation to alter our rights, and get government into the business of policing rights!
That Bill of Rights has served as a corruption, and Alexander Hamilton got it entirely correct in Federalist #84 when he wrote the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but it was "dangerous":
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
To paraphrase what Hamilton indicated in #84, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would serve as a “colorable pretext”, or an excuse, for government to claim as powers those Rights actually stipulated in the Bill of Rights, and indeed Hamilton has been vindicated because this is precisely what our own history has shown.
In fact, by the very existence of the Bill of Rights within the constitution, many believe they are grants therefrom, and can easily be amended, as describe in Article V.
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights instead of being our salvation, has proven time and time again, to be the means of our destruction.
Our government was meant to be shackled by those limited enumerated powers, and never meant to be allowed into the business of “Rights”, as those rights specifically and implicitly are recognized to protect us from government itself, and never as any sort of “demand license” to be used against our fellow citizens, as it is abused now. For example, the idea that a community must accept a Mosque in its midst, along with the repeated call to prayer, simply because of the 1st Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion”, should be utterly ridiculous. Similarly the idea that our schools must be turned into litigation battlegrounds for expectant “free speech”, should be equally ridiculous, but then neither should those schools be zones of compelled indoctrination. What happened is the government used the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a “colorable pretext” to imply it was in the business of policing rights, and by government’s selective choosing, the provision of rights, when rights were designed to specifically protect from that government itself, and to prohibit just such actions!
From those rights, we see the federal government taking that “freedom of the press”, and believing it might even now, recently, just as Hamilton warned, have a “power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it”, to define who and what constitute that press, so as to limit that protection, and afford the federal government protection from it, giving the law the Orwellian title of “Media Shield law” (Hamilton seems prescient here); or cherry-picking what is not an undue “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms, with the Court even arguing in current precedent that these 2nd Amendment rights do not apply to the States. All of these acts, and more, use that very Bill of Rights as just such a “colorable pretext” to provide excuse that those rights can be further defined, and even might be Amended as indicated in Article V, even to be entirely annulled!
This all involves the federal government believing its job is to police those Rights, from the “colorable pretext” of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights itself, when those rights are specifically to protect against that federal government. How far we have allowed this country to be dragged from our Founder’s vision.
Only in April of 2014, retired Justice Stevens published a book entitled "Six Amendments" , and it all involves changing the Bill of Rights, and denying a portion of our freedoms, including the right of every individual to keep and bear arms, and does so ENTIRELY BASED ON THE INCLUSION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the invitation this provided for government to manipulate, police and doll us out our rights!
Those rights are not actually grants from the Constitution itself, only partially listed within that document, so they cannot be amended there!
Even Lincoln's attack on the South, and the entire Civil War, was predicated on the belief that the government has the authority to protect, not just the Union, but to police the rights of the citizens, all from the inclusion of that Bill of Rights in the Constitution, when those rights are exclusively recognized there to prohibit any and all government action in their regard!
The Bill of Rights has actually been used to enslave us, rather than to keep us free.
Every time we reference our "Second Amendment right" to keep and bear arms, rather than just our unalienable right to keep and bear arms, we have given away what is unalienable, and are mentally showing that our belief that the Bill of Rights actually provides us those rights. By such ignorant references, we have given our tacit consent to already being slaves, not just becoming slaves.
Every bit of our history supports the corruption of our rights by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
The feds were not making new state laws, but then if the State laws could overrule and deny your unalienable rights, then those rights you claim are so important, are meaningless! . The founders themselves recognized that "whenever ANY FORM of government" no longer protects those rights, not just when the federal government does so.
"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
.
By TJ McCann