Happy Bill of Restraints Day!

By Bob Greenslade on December 14, 2011 in Uncategorized

With the 220^th anniversary of the adoption of the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights upon us, a majority of the American people still do not understand the true intent of the Amendments. They believe the Amendments are the source of their individual rights and the federal government was granted the general power to secure those rights. In reality, the Amendments did not create any individual rights or grant the federal government any general power.

When the “Bill of Rights” was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it contained 12 proposed amendments and was prefaced with a preamble that spelled out the intent of the Amendments. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted (2 were rejected 10 were agreed to), would not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any general power; they would place additional restraints and/or qualifications on federal power concerning the rights enumerated therein.

The best way to explain the intent of the Amendments was to re-write them through the preamble. This re-write helps explain the original intent of the Amendments, without resorting to the preamble, and makes them easier to understand. Some words have been changed to reflect modern usage and the sentence structure has been slightly altered in a few of the Amendments. The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [http://www.billofrights.org/], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.

Article I……… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any 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.

Article II……… Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. (EN 1)

Article III……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment grants the federal government a very narrow lawmaking power to qualify the restraint.)

Article IV……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, 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.

Article V……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person 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 the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI……… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate 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; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII……… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the people’s right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

Article IX……… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X……… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (No change on this Amendment is needed)

Even through the Constitution established a government of limited enumerated powers and under this system of government every power not granted was denied, the States decided that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were needed to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” Thus, the insertion of phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the intent of the Amendments.

After establishing the original intent of the Amendments, three things are certain. First, the purpose of the Amendments was to place additional restraints and/or qualifications on the powers of the federal government. Second, the Amendments did not grant the people of the individual States any so-called constitutional rights. Third, the Amendments did not grant the federal government the general power to secure the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.”

In the author’s opinion, government and the American public school system are intentionally suppressing the preamble and the original intent of the Amendments because government wants it that way. If government wanted students properly educated on the “Bill of Rights,” it would insist that the civics curriculum incorporate this information into classes and textbooks.

By advancing the myth that the “Bill of Rights” grants the American people individual rights, the federal government has been able to assume the role of “protector” of those rights. This has allowed it to transform restraints on power into grants of power. The federal government now claims it has the power to impose “reasonable restraints” on any right enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” This is an absurdity because the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is allowed to assume this power, then the Constitution is meaningless as a written document because government can simply modify or remove every restraint on its power.

Now that you know how to properly read the Amendments in a manner that is consistent with original intent, as expressed in the preamble, don’t be a victim of the government’s public school system on December 15^th when we celebrate the 220^th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights Restraints.

Endnote 1-The word “because” can used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. The first part of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause because a well-regulated militia is dependent upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms not visa versa. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.

About Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003. Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

View all posts by Bob Greenslade →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Subscribe and Follow

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Proposed cell phone ban recommendation could lead to federal overreach

The Bill of Rights vs the FDA and the NDAA

31 comments

Newest | Oldest

adidell2

@phreedomphan Phreedomphan: I agree that your examples are an absurdity, however it was well understood that our rights come from our Creator and our humanity, not government. Even if a State technically has no restriction under the Constitution to infringe on these rights, an educated and virtuous People would never let it stand, be it by vote or by rebellion. The problem is we have few voters that have those qualities, so our rights are infringed upon illegally by all levels of government. Ironically, this is especially true at the Federal level, the very thing the Bill of Rights is supposed to expressly prevent. That said, I'd like the author to comment on what restrictions the states are under as a condition of joining the union, other than Article IV, Section 4 (they must have a Republican form of government.). According to his latest post, as I had suspected, there were none until the 14th Amendment placed us on that lovely road of good intentions...and we all know where that leads.

phreedomphan

While I agree, and have believed this for quite awhile, that Bill of Restraints or Restrictions may be more appropriate than “Bill of Rights,” I disagree that they only apply to the federal government.

True, the First does specifically name Congress. This allows religious law, even the adoption of a State religion, to be at the discretion of the States, but I don't agree that States are not restricted by the others. I believe those restrictions would fall under “prohibited by it to the States.”

If it only appllied to the federal government, why would a trial by jury in the State where the crime had been committed be spelled out? If a federal crime had been committed, why not in a federal court elsewhere? Why would it be necessary to create federal courts in every “district”? True, it might be argued that moving an accused far from his home for trial could be a major problem for him/her, in some instances it might actually be a shorter move to a federal court across a state line.

To me the idea that the requirement of a jury trial applies only to the federal government is absurd. More absurd is the idea that the 2nd applies only to the federal government. That it doesn't apply to the States has been used as an excuse to allow all manner of infringement on our right to keep and bear by State and local governments. Moreover, the 2nd does not grant a right at all, but recognizes our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms and to do so without infringement by federal, State, or local governments. Would people moving west from New Jersey have accepted the “right” of Pennsylvania to stop and disarm them at the State border. Absurd.

Finally, if I may be excused for disagreeing with the "expert," I refuse to accept the idea that State and local governments can torture an accused until he confesses because the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment applies only to the federal government.

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

Sorry but the Amendments, as written, only applied to the federal government. It has always been the responsibility of the individual States to protect your rights. That is one of the reasons why the Constitution did not originally contain a so-called Bill of Rights.

The following from the debate on the 14th Amendment might be of interest.

The proposal that became section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by Congressman Bingham and agreed to by a Committee on April 28, 1866.

Representative Stevens, speaking for the Committee, introduced the proposed amendment in the House of Representatives on May 8, 1866:

"I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted, in some form or other, in our Declaration (of Independence) or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This amendment supplies the defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States…"

On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal in the Senate.

"[T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them… The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade Sorry, Bob, but I don't buy it. Firstly, I believe the Bill of Rights was insisted upon because the Constitution, as reported out of the Convention was a blueprint for the unlimited central government desired by some of the "founders" such as economic royalist Hamilton. Only the alertness of men like Jefferson, Lee, and Smith prevented us from being saddled with today's tyranny, yesterday. But I think the specific wording does, in some cases show certain provisions to be applicable only to the federal government but in others to the States as well. I'm definitely not going to go through all of my files, computer and paper, to pull up all the reasons behind my conclusions, but I see nothing in your citations strong enough to convince me. Go through enough political statements and you can find quotes to support almost any conclusion.

The fourteenth was a questionable amendment to say the least. Not that it wasn't justified in some cases, but it was accomplished by force of arms. It has also been used to justify federal intervention in areas where only the federal government was restrained such as religion. Although the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the States from establishing a religion, nor does it specifically grant a "freedom of religion," it has been used to stop prayer in State and local schools regardless of the wishes of the majority in those areas and to force the removal of a sculpture depicting the Ten Commandments from a State courthouse.

There's no question something had to be done to correct the evils of slavery, but I contend that the only reason there may have been no attempt to apply the Bill of Rights to the States is the fear of the split that eventually occurred and not because of in-applicability. I can imagine what would have happened if the States had been told that they couldn't prohibit slaves from owning weapons.

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

I know this will come as a shock, but I have been writing pro right to bear arms articles for years. Unfortunately, from your comments, I question whether you can grasp the message.

The Flawed Second Amendment Debate

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/10/06/greenslade.htm

The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm

Would the Repeal of the Second Amendment Empower the Federal Government and Negate the Right to Own a Firearm?

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/08/27/greenslade.htm

Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment?

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/10/22/greenslade.htm

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/11/12/greenslade.htm

A Question For The Supreme Court

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/12/03/greenslade.htm

Michael Boldin moderator

@phreedomphan @Bob Greenslade as far as what I was saying in the schools holds true. Leave something to the Feds and it gets destroyed. Glad you agree.

Michael Boldin moderator

The warning? Every person like you who advocates a federally enforced gun right just empowers the gun grabbers to do the opposite when THEY are in power. You want the federal constitution to apply to the states? Good luck with your freedom...it'll keep going down the toilet like it is now under the system you advocate....which is what we have now. Why? When you centralize you leave it up to federal politicians to protect your rights...and that never goes well.

Michael Boldin moderator

@phreedomphan @Bob Greenslade Look, that is dumb. I'm not even talking about what is right or wrong. I'm talking about what is constitutional or not. Like you, many people confuse the word constitutional with the word good and unconstitutional with the word bad. The system set up under the constitution was done due to a belief that the greatest threat to rights came from centralized power. That's why they created a system that limited that power, and left the people of each state to their own job.

This is a fact. There is no dispute on this. None. Literally. Except every now and then there's some liberal fool who thinks that the feds should enforce a right to abortion. Or the Feds should enforce the aright to free speech. Conservatives do the same...trying to federally enforce gun rights. The founders warned us what would happen if people in this country ever became so far removed from their designs.

phreedomphan

@Michael Boldin @Bob Greenslade

A zealot-type belief? Yeah, I'm pretty zealous about liberty and stopping the plans of the financial elite who want their NWO to go unchallenged. I tend to see your advocacy of the arguments of those who would disarm us and take our right to trial by jury through the States as a sellout-type belief.

“This is the product of federally-run schools, which teaches people that the FEDERAL government is the savior of all our problems.

Hasn't worked too well, has it.”

Yeah! Riiight! The federally-run schools are teaching people that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Talk about an absurd argument. These two lines look an awful lot like a technique I've encountered, (used mostly by “liberals” but sometimes by conservatives), of reading into an opponent's argument something they never said or even hinted at.

Say what you will. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time on this. I stand for liberty. I know longer know what you stand for. I guess I never did.

phreedomphan

@Michael Boldin @Bob Greenslade

My, my, a blanket attack on “conservatives” coupled with a defense of “liberals.' Are your colors beginning to show, Michael? For your information, I once was a “conservative,” but I lean far more to Libertarianism now. I was also once a blind follower of the “Founders,” but I learned that they were not all champions of liberty. Maybe of their own, but not necessarily that of us peons. There are studies that show that those who dominate the economy of an area also dominate the politics so they can use government to protect and further their own interests. The interests of Hamilton and his gang of nationalists lay in banking and interstate commerce, which is why they produced a document that created an almost totalitarian government from the start. They usurped the name Federalists because they knew the majority of the people wanted a federation and not a nation Men like Smith, Lee, and Jefferson saw what they were doing and insisted on the Bill of Rights. This doesn't mean that they didn't have interests, but those were better protected and furthered by State and local governments. So it would not surprise me if there were some way to discern their motives that, although they may have opposed the establishment of a national kingdom, some weren't adverse to setting up their own. Their concept of “States Rights” may not have included the people's rights. In any event, I don't believe for a minute that the majority of the people populating the States at the time would have accepted either idea.

phreedomphan

@Michael Boldin @Bob Greenslade

A bad argument by your decree? When you and your writers start advancing the arguments of those who would justify elimination of our right to keep and bear arms without infringement, it's not so “dumb” to assume you support the resulting disarmament. The alternative would be to think that you're the one who is dumb, and I certainly don't think that.

I can sympathize with your sick and tired feeling. I get the same feeling from dissemblers who affect the role of the defenders of liberty by defending the rights of States while pursuing an evident agenda of destroying individual rights. I see little difference in the “States' Rights” theme and the collectivist theories of Hegel and his followers. Damn the individual, the State is God.

If I'm playing into the hands of “all comers” who, through the system, threaten liberty from all corners then you are one of the “comers” dealing the hand that threatens liberty. Claiming that the right to keep and bear arms does not restrict the States is tantamount to declaring all rights null and void because without that right, all “rights” become privileges extended or retracted at whim of the government. You know every bit as well as I do that money controls the federal government through the national debt and the federal government controls most of the states through revenue sharing and grants. In the long run the States will be coerced into giving the federal government what it wants. Deny it if you wish, but money is behind the push to disarm the people.

Michael Boldin moderator

@phreedomphan @Bob Greenslade moreover, PHREE - as you say - "nothing will convince me" - this is absurd.

Because you have a zealout-type belief in what you THINK the bill of rights was for. Doesn't matter what EVERY founder said it was far. Doesn't matter that there is NOTHING, not a single thing from the historical record that backs up your claim.

This is the product of federally-run schools, which teaches people that the FEDERAL government is the savior of all our problems.

Hasn't worked too well, has it.

Michael Boldin moderator

@phreedomphan @Bob Greenslade now, if you want to argue with James Madison over the application of the bill of rights, go for it.

But don't be mad at me, or Bob, or anyone else who makes clear what the founders intended. T

his is just another reason why I often say conservatives actually don't LIKE the Constitution. They only like what they WISH it did.

Liberals don't like it either, but rarely pretend to - that's another discussion.

Michael Boldin moderator

1 Like

@phreedomphan @Bob Greenslade this is just a bad argument. period. I argue that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government because the founders said so. Do I support disarming people? no. that's a dumb assumption. I'm sick and tired of people who start out with a personal political motive, and then worry about making the constitution fit that motive. YOU, "freedom fan" YOU are playing into the hands of the system that we have today - where liberty is under threat from all comers.....

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade (continuation)

You claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. In making this claim, you advance the argument used by those seeking to use State and local governments as the agencies for disarming the American people. You leave it to State constitutions to safeguard the Right To Keep And Bear Arms. Why do you ignore the fact that the federal government has been using its monetary power to dictate to the states, even involving changes to state constitutions, for the better part of a century. Anyone who's interested can see how that power has been used in quotes from two books, one from 1923 and the other written by a leading sponsor of “Revenue Sharing,” Henry Reuss. http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2008/07/regionalism-death-of-american-system.html

I don't believe, Mr. Greenslade, that you are ignorant of the economic power Washington holds over the State and local governments nor of the intense desire in the circles of power to disarm the citizens using the State and local governments. Still, you advance their arguments for disarming using those State and local governments. For that reason I can only follow Paul Harvey's advice and ask you which group of citizens you want exterminated?

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade @phreedomphan Threat??? You must be paranoid. No wonder you support the disarmament of the American people. What I said was hardly a threat. It was more a statement of the contempt in which I hold you for your support of abrogation of the 2nd Amendment.

The following is excerpted from one of my blog posts. I regret that my source did not list the specific broadcast.

Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws ? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter? Consider: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

(continued)

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan Not an attorney so don't waste your time. I have been on the federal government's enemy list for many years so your threat to add me to your list has me quaking in my boots!

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade You make a great attorney for those who would use the monetary control the federal government has over State and local governments to disarm the American people through the back door. If I get the chance and investigation shows you worth the effort, I'll be sure to list you in my Americas' Enemies blog.

I'll still go by what the amendment says, "shall not be infringed," and not by what Big Brother's lawyers say was intended. If what you say is true, then it would seem that those favoring a federation were no more friends of the people than were Hamilton and the gang pushing the a national government.

I'm also certain that, had not so many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence been dead or pushed aside by the loss of their fortunes and sometimes their families, they would never concede that certain clauses such as the 2nd Amendment were not universal.

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

Here is some more info for your files. The ratification documents of the individual States provide some insight on this issue.

On February 6, 1788, Massachusetts became the first State to request amendments to the proposed constitution. Their ratification document stated, in part:

"[I]t is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.

First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."

A review of Massachusetts' document shows it was was requesting amendments for the purpose of restraining the federal government and preserving state sovereignty.

The New Hampshire Convention used almost identical language in their ratification document.

A review of the State ratification documents show that seven States requested amendments but only two specifically requested a bill of rights. However, all seven requested an amendment to ensure that every power not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the States. (10th Amendment) The preservation of state sovereignty took precedence to a bill of rights in these documents. Not one state made any mention of constitutional rights. Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all referred to rights as “unalienable” and “natural” meaning they transcend government, a written constitution, or a so-called Bill of Rights.

Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island all sought to secure the natural rights of the people by placing additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade Thanks for the link. I've copied the article for my files for later. Right now I've too much on my plate.

I really haven't much more time to spend here, but I can tell you that nothing will convince me that the arguments used by the enemies of liberty to disarm us through State and local legislation is valid. I don't believe the people that accepted the Constitution were that stupid. We may be but they weren't. There is no question in my mind that "shall not be infringed" meant by any level of government. While I'm sure quotes can always be pulled from the records of Congressional debates to support the contrary, I'm equally certain quotes could be found from the other side in the debates if one has the time.

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

From the Huffington Post.

It's Up to the Public to Vindicate Bill of Rights Day

"Today is Bill of Rights Day, the 220-year anniversary of this revered document's addition to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. The Anti-Federalists had demanded a Bill of Rights to ensure that the federal government created in 1789 would not morph into the type of tyranny that the American colonists had resisted in the Revolution."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-gregory/its-up-to-the-public-to-v_b_1137111.html

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

More info for your consideration.

Bar to Federal Action

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

phreedomphan

@Bob Greenslade If the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States as you claim, then freedom has been an illusion. All of what we have considered our rights have been nothing more than privileges to be extended or retracted at the whim of the rulers of our potentially totalitarian States.

Please cite the provision in the Bill of Rights that gives the States the power to enforce the Bill of Rights on the federal government. The States that didn't like what the federal government was doing had to secede.

I see now you refer to a Supreme Court ruling. Okay, you win. The Supreme Court would never make a ruling that wasn't true and in complete accord with the Constitution. Everything is well in America.

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the United States Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights restricts ONLY the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.

Bob Greenslade

If the Bill of Rights applied to the States as you claim, then the federal government would have been the entity designated in the Amendments to protect those rights from the States and specifically granted the power to do so. (See the last section of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26 and the 2nd section of Amendment 18 where Congress is specifically granted an enforcement power.)

Since the federal government is a government of enumerated powers, please cite the provisions in the "Bill of Rights " that grants the federal government this power?

Bob Greenslade

@phreedomphan

In 1871, a bill was before the House of Representatives that contemplated enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Garfield, who had participated in the debates on the Amendment in 1866 stated:

"I ask the attention of the House to the first section of that amendment, as to its scope and meaning. I hope gentlemen will bear in mind that this debate, in which so many have taken part, will become historical, as the earliest legislative construction given to this clause of the amendment. Not only the words which we put into the law, but what shall be said here in the way of defining and interpreting the meaning of the clause, may go far to settle its interpretation and its value to the country hereafter."

A few days earlier, in a debate on the same bill, Representative Bingham, still a member of House, gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the Amendment as he had originally conceived it:

"Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. Farnsworth) did me unwittingly, great service, when he ventured to ask me why I changed the form of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment from the form in which I reported it to the House of February, 1866, from the Committee on Reconstruction. * * I had the honor to frame the amendment as reported in February, 1866, and the first section, as it now stands, letter for letter syllable for syllable, in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, save the introductory clause defining citizens."

He continued his remarks by stating:

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,’ are an express prohibition upon every State in the Union…"

The author of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that the intent of this clause was to make the prohibitions contained in the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

phreedomphan

Off topic, but if you folks could add an "edit" function here, I think it would be great. No matter how many times I read and reread my comment, errors don't pop out until the instant after I click to post. Rather than delete and resubmit, I just let the errors stand.

WilliamSchooler

@phreedomphan

most of us do, even with editing they still get by. I have written tons and go back after 10 readings and find 2 or 3 things I missed. Is it how well we write it or how good the message is? No way are words perfect themselves and we should not work so hard to out perform symbols and focus more on the message sent. Is the idea being delivered and understood as it sits? Is there more once the message has arrived? I think not.

Some of my best messages has been flawed and it is me critiquing me and by then my original idea is now a new idea. Where was I then and where and I now. Some ideas are best left said as they were said.

Thomas The Firestarter

I like the title, "Bill of [Restraints]," because it echoes Jefferson's sentiment to "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Bind, restrain, (nullify)...I like that kind of talk when it comes to our federal government (and state too).

LauLau81

Thanks Bob for the nice post you have for us...I think I have to share this as well...

Latest blog post: Les Arcs

WilliamSchooler

This is so correct Bob, thank you for spelling it out. When I read them they mean LIBERTY, free from any such abuses of such articles and has nothing to do with my right to do anything. Thank you for helping to make this far more clear for so many it is not clear to. Educating ourselves is something we are very capable of should we use this act and it is not that hard to evaluate these efforts and discover these truths. All it takes is effort and I can only ask what does not?

Navigation