|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Foundations of the Bill of Rights
| Article
# : |
20438 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1992 |
4,297 Words |
| Author
: |
Andrew J. Reck
Andrew J. Reck is professor of philosophy and director of the
master of liberal arts program at Tulane University. |
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became part of the fundamental law of the United States in 1791, constitute the Bill of Rights. Extended to individual citizens through judicial interpretation of the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights is generally regarded as the bulwark of American freedom. Yet the constitution proposed by a federal convention in 1787, contained no bill of rights, although in the preamble it announced that the people were establishing the constitution to achieve, among other objectives, the securing of liberties for themselves and their posterity.
The lack of a bill or rights in the original Constitution did not go unnoticed at the convention. On September 12, 1787, Hugh Williamson, a delegate from North Carolina, remarked that there was need to revise the proposed constitution to provided for juries in civil cases. Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts disagreed; the matter could be trusted to Congress, Elbridge Gerry, also from Massachusetts, sided with Williamson on behalf of trial by juries.
At this point in the debate, George Mason of Virginia, recognizing that it was not feasible to distinguish cases that should be tried by juries from cases that could be left to judges, suggested that the Constitution should contain a general principle on this and some other points, and in this regard, expressed the wish that the Constitution had been prefaced with a bill of rights. Gerry moved that a committee be established to prepare a bill of rights, and Mason seconded the motion.
In opposition, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, while stating that he was "for securing the rights of the people where requisite," responded.
The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient. There are many cases where juries are proper which cannot be discriminated. The Legislature may be trusted.
Mason disagreed; he noted; "The Laws of the U.S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights". A vote was taken on the question for a committee to prepare a bill of rights, the motion failed.
Hamilton's Joust With The Anti-Federalists
The omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution of 1787 excited opposition from the Anti Federalists. Rebuttals of
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
