That is what Madison and Hamilton might have preferred to call the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They believed that the "amendments" were not necessary. Why write down that the federal government can not infringe on the right to bear arms? What power does the Constitution give the federal government to infringe on that right in the first place? It was not at issue. Some saw that it could be.
"They (first ten amendments) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."- Federalist 84 (Hamilton)
How far we have travelled off the path laid down for us…
3 comments:
A university class on the Federalist Papers should be a prerequisite of graduation. Naturally it's not because they are studying womyn's rights and so forth.
The government will concentrate more and more power unto itself unless people stand firm and there aren't that many firm backbones in America. It's why Franklin said that he gave us a republic - if we could keep it.
I find it interesting that if Trump wins the nomination, Republicans are threatening to form their own third party as a reaction. I suggest that they call their new party "The Progressive Party" and use a Rhino as their totem.
As you point out, the Founders would have said that it's obvious that a free people should have a right to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They would have considered a government that worked to abridge that right "tyrannical".
Then again, if they were alive today, I think that they would be very depressed at what the society that underpins government has become. They had the same problem with Barbary Pirates that we have and they didn't ship 10,000 of them to the USA, did they?
One of the problems, as I see it, is that progressives have a fundamentally different view of social institutions than we do. They tend to base social justice on emotional standards based on faulty premises. It's a good thing the Bill of Rights was indeed written. For the time being, they stand in the way of progressive ideologues who "know better" than the founders.
Post a Comment