I Have Something to Say
We have had a lot of discussion recently about the "Bill of Rights" and the constitutional protection it insures. It is sad that most Americans don’t grasp even the fundamental knowledge of that document which protects them. The US constitution is unique in its content and unlike any other ever conceived. All democracies and even some non-democracies have a constitution that specifically details the rights of the citizens.
The original constitution didn't have a "Bill of Rights" because it didn't need one. The US constitution takes a different approach. Since it was not an existing government granting rights to individuals but individuals forming their own government it assumes first that the people already have all their rights and the people grant certain limited powers to the government. That is why the clause that says, “All powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remain with the “states” and the “individuals” respectively. The government exists by the consent of the governed.
The constitution is specific as to the powers granted to each branch of government and divided the powers so as to offer protection from one branch overtaking another. But of course this system of checks and balances only works if the branches exercise the power they have to ensure that protection happens. The Supreme Court’s task is to determine that laws passed by the federal and state governments meet constitutional guidelines. That is their only criteria for judgment. It doesn’t matter what might be a nice gesture or what they think is good for the country, their only criteria is does the constitution grant the right to pass that law.
The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because some states refused to ratify it without them. Those opposed viewed them as unnecessary and even dangerous. Their belief was that it would be assumed the rights came from the government and could be rescinded instead of the reality of power being granted to the government by the people.
The original constitution didn't have a "Bill of Rights" because it didn't need one. The US constitution takes a different approach. Since it was not an existing government granting rights to individuals but individuals forming their own government it assumes first that the people already have all their rights and the people grant certain limited powers to the government. That is why the clause that says, “All powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remain with the “states” and the “individuals” respectively. The government exists by the consent of the governed.
The constitution is specific as to the powers granted to each branch of government and divided the powers so as to offer protection from one branch overtaking another. But of course this system of checks and balances only works if the branches exercise the power they have to ensure that protection happens. The Supreme Court’s task is to determine that laws passed by the federal and state governments meet constitutional guidelines. That is their only criteria for judgment. It doesn’t matter what might be a nice gesture or what they think is good for the country, their only criteria is does the constitution grant the right to pass that law.
The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because some states refused to ratify it without them. Those opposed viewed them as unnecessary and even dangerous. Their belief was that it would be assumed the rights came from the government and could be rescinded instead of the reality of power being granted to the government by the people.
