On the “Bill of Rights”: There were serious, very thoughtful debates over whether these or any specific rights, as included in the Virginia document or Magna Carter, should be included as part of the US Constitution, with Madison being adamant they be included. Reason of concern expressed by many: Such a list could be misinterpreted as e…
On the “Bill of Rights”: There were serious, very thoughtful debates over whether these or any specific rights, as included in the Virginia document or Magna Carter, should be included as part of the US Constitution, with Madison being adamant they be included. Reason of concern expressed by many: Such a list could be misinterpreted as exclusive, thereby leaving out other potential freedoms. No-one argued against these freedoms as such. Their concern was that such a list would be misinterpreted as exclusive. Here’s an example of a totally false current statement of the purpose of the “Bill of Rights” found here in Britannica: “... It spells out the rights of the people of the United States in relation to their government.”
Such an ignorant statement, i.e., “it spells out the rights”, by Britannica is proof of the concerns expressed against including the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. In no way did or does it “spell out the rights”. It was only intended as example rights, but Madison wouldn’t sign if it weren’t included. Our explicitly ‘limited’ government Constitution was never intended to imply restrictions on rights not in writing.
The 10th Amendment reinforces this idea by limiting the Federal government to its bare minimus while extending States and We the People maximum and thus unlimited rights outside the scope of the Bill of Rights.
On the “Bill of Rights”: There were serious, very thoughtful debates over whether these or any specific rights, as included in the Virginia document or Magna Carter, should be included as part of the US Constitution, with Madison being adamant they be included. Reason of concern expressed by many: Such a list could be misinterpreted as exclusive, thereby leaving out other potential freedoms. No-one argued against these freedoms as such. Their concern was that such a list would be misinterpreted as exclusive. Here’s an example of a totally false current statement of the purpose of the “Bill of Rights” found here in Britannica: “... It spells out the rights of the people of the United States in relation to their government.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution
-------------------------
Such an ignorant statement, i.e., “it spells out the rights”, by Britannica is proof of the concerns expressed against including the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. In no way did or does it “spell out the rights”. It was only intended as example rights, but Madison wouldn’t sign if it weren’t included. Our explicitly ‘limited’ government Constitution was never intended to imply restrictions on rights not in writing.
The 10th Amendment reinforces this idea by limiting the Federal government to its bare minimus while extending States and We the People maximum and thus unlimited rights outside the scope of the Bill of Rights.