Temporary Archive: Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board

Back to Archive Index

a quick interjection

Posted by Wendy R. on 10/4/2005, 21:53:29, in reply to "a couple more thought here too..."
>>"The first ten amendments and the 14th too, those amendments specifically says that it/they apply "to all-persons" indicating by and large that the scope here is everyone, but these would be the only items that do apply to everyone, unless so stipulated."<<


This is exactly why Federalists like Alexander Hamilton were so dead set against the idea of adding a Bill of Rights ito the Constitution. They were convinced that to list any rights given was to affirm that other rights were _not_ given.

The opposing side (in the words of Wikipedia) believed "that such a list of rights should not and would not be interpreted as being exhaustive; In other words, the rights to be enumerated would be some of the most important rights that people had, but many other rights existed as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Controversy

* * *

James Madison, the author of the BoR and a chief participant in drafting the Constitution wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I suppose it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice."

And at the end of that letter, he specifically refers to the potential suspension of habeus corpus:

"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper ... I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy. Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. Corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. ... The best security against these evils is to remove the pretext for them."

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.htm


Responses:


Temporarily archived without permission from Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board.
Contact Donna if questions or concerns.