20 - The Bill of Rights
Understanding why and how we started to change our Constitution is interesting. It was a document meant to last forever, resisted change by the founding drafters, but acknowledged the power it had.
The Bill of Rights was the first attempt to address concepts not clear in the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights, and they were ratified on December 15, 1791.
Following the adoption of the Constitution, the founding fathers were concerned with making changes to the document that may construe a re-evaluation of the Constitution. They asked each other how could they have written a document that needed to be amended within years? How could it stand for the testament of time if it was in error?
James Madison was not an advocate for having the direct statements of freedoms and process directly into a document that needed to stand up to time. Each right proposed was intended to clarify or delineate the intentions of the constitution, and some may appear contradictory or redundant. Also, writing out the guarantees may limit the actual process of the new country, or potentially have the government take the document too literally, believing that if not spelled out explicitly, then it must not matter. The ninth amendment was included to leave a window for people to understand they have more freedoms than those spelled out.
One benefit of confirming the Bill of Rights quickly would be to squash Anti-Federalists that may impose more limiting approaches if not done with the First Congress.
The original Bill of Rights actually drafted seventeen articles, which were consolidated and clarified to the twelve proposed. The Senate approved the twelve on September 9, 1789 with Congress following on September 25, 1789 and sending to the states for ratification. Similar to the Nineteenth Amendment, they needed three-fourths approval to ratify the amendments. Ten of the twelve were ratified on December 15, 1791. Of the other two, one was later passed as the 27th Amendment and one is still pending.
My Take.
The crafting of both the Constitution and the following amendments have been plagued by the process and the rights it afforded. If the fifteenth amendment, “Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” hadn’t been as specific, it could have afforded the rights to all people be it gender, sexual orientation, etc. without the process and debate amendments require. Proven by the 18th and 21st amendments of prohibition and subsequent repeal show that the process was enacted for more personal or “whims” of the time.
With our government in a state of disarray and upheaval, it concerns me to think of where the presence of time could impact our states with the process of an amendment. Where they once enabled more freedoms, our times may be looking for more restriction. The Senate and Congress cannot even turn to their partisan support because in themselves they are fractured and battling where they stand. For one thing, it is not together.
The power of making universal change to our founding document is one that was not taken lightly. The research and development of this process has been eye opening to me and my role in following and empowering a government I can believe in. For now, this is our foundation. Our Constitution and all its parts is our rock. Still America.
The Bill of Rights was the first attempt to address concepts not clear in the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights, and they were ratified on December 15, 1791.
Following the adoption of the Constitution, the founding fathers were concerned with making changes to the document that may construe a re-evaluation of the Constitution. They asked each other how could they have written a document that needed to be amended within years? How could it stand for the testament of time if it was in error?
James Madison was not an advocate for having the direct statements of freedoms and process directly into a document that needed to stand up to time. Each right proposed was intended to clarify or delineate the intentions of the constitution, and some may appear contradictory or redundant. Also, writing out the guarantees may limit the actual process of the new country, or potentially have the government take the document too literally, believing that if not spelled out explicitly, then it must not matter. The ninth amendment was included to leave a window for people to understand they have more freedoms than those spelled out.
One benefit of confirming the Bill of Rights quickly would be to squash Anti-Federalists that may impose more limiting approaches if not done with the First Congress.
The original Bill of Rights actually drafted seventeen articles, which were consolidated and clarified to the twelve proposed. The Senate approved the twelve on September 9, 1789 with Congress following on September 25, 1789 and sending to the states for ratification. Similar to the Nineteenth Amendment, they needed three-fourths approval to ratify the amendments. Ten of the twelve were ratified on December 15, 1791. Of the other two, one was later passed as the 27th Amendment and one is still pending.
My Take.
The crafting of both the Constitution and the following amendments have been plagued by the process and the rights it afforded. If the fifteenth amendment, “Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” hadn’t been as specific, it could have afforded the rights to all people be it gender, sexual orientation, etc. without the process and debate amendments require. Proven by the 18th and 21st amendments of prohibition and subsequent repeal show that the process was enacted for more personal or “whims” of the time.
With our government in a state of disarray and upheaval, it concerns me to think of where the presence of time could impact our states with the process of an amendment. Where they once enabled more freedoms, our times may be looking for more restriction. The Senate and Congress cannot even turn to their partisan support because in themselves they are fractured and battling where they stand. For one thing, it is not together.
The power of making universal change to our founding document is one that was not taken lightly. The research and development of this process has been eye opening to me and my role in following and empowering a government I can believe in. For now, this is our foundation. Our Constitution and all its parts is our rock. Still America.
Comments
Post a Comment