The Bill of Rights: Americas Last Defense Against the Federal Suffocat

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Is our Bill of Rights necessary? Does it put a limit on our government, or on our liberty? Do these ten amendments hold the same meaning today as they did two-hundred and fourteen years ago? Are they now or have they ever been relevant? These questions were debated by our nation’s founding fathers in the eighteenth century and continue to be debated by the historians, academics, and political scientists today. Over the course of the last two centuries, its meaning has been twisted and stretched by the interpretation and misinterpretation of our legislature and, most of all, by the Supreme Court wielding its power of judicial review. It is my belief that these rights were and are absolutely essential to maintaining any liberty in this country; however, I also believe they have placed a limit on our liberties in that the government has come to restrict many rights that are not expressly declared in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, it is nece ssary to convene a convention dedicated to defining and expanding the protected rights and to put these revisions to the people through normal amendment processes requiring ratification by three-quarters of the states.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To begin, we need to understand what a â€Å"bill of rights† is and where it comes from. Bills, or lists, of rights litter American colonial history, from the Declaration of Rights issued to the British parliament in response to the Stamp Act of 1765, which led to the repeal of that act, to those found in state governments such as Virginia and Delaware during the earliest days of the new nation. These lists were written in response to years of oppression suffered by the colonists at the hands of a tyrannical British government. They outlined certain individual rights that were held to be above government regulation by the philosophy of the time. Though the first ten amendments do not constitute the first list of rights ever devised, they are the first list incorporated into a national constitution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The founders developed two contradicting viewpoints on this subject, which threatened to bring the process of ratification to a standstill. In his letters, Federalist 84 and Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton, writing as â€Å"Publius†, summarized the federalist argument against the bill of rights. He presented what I f... ...oncerns, their philosophies are outdated. Perhaps our constitution is inadequate. If this is so, should we not change it rather than allow the justices of the Supreme Court to decide what it means as they see fit for the current political, social, or economic climate? It took an entire nation to decide the wording of our present constitution. Is it fair to leave its interpretation in the hands of only nine men and women? Does it make sense to allow them to decide that terms which are written as absolutes could, in some cases, be conditional? I propose a simple solution to the problem. We, the people of this nation, need to decide what we want our Constitution to say. Then, we need to rephrase the wording so that it cannot be misinterpreted. This would require amending the amendments that are already in place with more specific language. This could restore the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights and put it back in its rightful place, above the national government. Until that time, the only way the Bill of Rights will continue to provide shelter from government intrusion is to take it at face value and to quit trying to establish conditions under which it doesn’t mean what it says. The Bill of Rights: Americas Last Defense Against the Federal Suffocat   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Is our Bill of Rights necessary? Does it put a limit on our government, or on our liberty? Do these ten amendments hold the same meaning today as they did two-hundred and fourteen years ago? Are they now or have they ever been relevant? These questions were debated by our nation’s founding fathers in the eighteenth century and continue to be debated by the historians, academics, and political scientists today. Over the course of the last two centuries, its meaning has been twisted and stretched by the interpretation and misinterpretation of our legislature and, most of all, by the Supreme Court wielding its power of judicial review. It is my belief that these rights were and are absolutely essential to maintaining any liberty in this country; however, I also believe they have placed a limit on our liberties in that the government has come to restrict many rights that are not expressly declared in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, it is nece ssary to convene a convention dedicated to defining and expanding the protected rights and to put these revisions to the people through normal amendment processes requiring ratification by three-quarters of the states.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To begin, we need to understand what a â€Å"bill of rights† is and where it comes from. Bills, or lists, of rights litter American colonial history, from the Declaration of Rights issued to the British parliament in response to the Stamp Act of 1765, which led to the repeal of that act, to those found in state governments such as Virginia and Delaware during the earliest days of the new nation. These lists were written in response to years of oppression suffered by the colonists at the hands of a tyrannical British government. They outlined certain individual rights that were held to be above government regulation by the philosophy of the time. Though the first ten amendments do not constitute the first list of rights ever devised, they are the first list incorporated into a national constitution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The founders developed two contradicting viewpoints on this subject, which threatened to bring the process of ratification to a standstill. In his letters, Federalist 84 and Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton, writing as â€Å"Publius†, summarized the federalist argument against the bill of rights. He presented what I f... ...oncerns, their philosophies are outdated. Perhaps our constitution is inadequate. If this is so, should we not change it rather than allow the justices of the Supreme Court to decide what it means as they see fit for the current political, social, or economic climate? It took an entire nation to decide the wording of our present constitution. Is it fair to leave its interpretation in the hands of only nine men and women? Does it make sense to allow them to decide that terms which are written as absolutes could, in some cases, be conditional? I propose a simple solution to the problem. We, the people of this nation, need to decide what we want our Constitution to say. Then, we need to rephrase the wording so that it cannot be misinterpreted. This would require amending the amendments that are already in place with more specific language. This could restore the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights and put it back in its rightful place, above the national government. Until that time, the only way the Bill of Rights will continue to provide shelter from government intrusion is to take it at face value and to quit trying to establish conditions under which it doesn’t mean what it says.