“The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal
government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several
rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on
quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on
Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's
recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September
12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights
in the Constitution were rejected. As adopted, the Constitution included
only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the
obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the
federal and state governments from enforcing
ex post facto laws (laws
that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was
undertaken) and provisions barring
bills of attainder (legislative
determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10). The
framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the
Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that
made it difficult for oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be
used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate
over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated
compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.
In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution,
complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the
delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have
included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious
doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a
series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification
and the First Congress comes into session. The concession
was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought
ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional
Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison
called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights
is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it
a "parchment barrier." (Madison's
preference at the Convention to safeguard liberties was by giving Congress an
unlimited veto over state laws and creating a joint executive-judicial council
of revision that could veto federal laws.) Despite his skepticism, by the
fall of 1788, Madison
believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its
value, in Madison's view, was in part
educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a
future oppressive government, and finally--in an argument borrowed from Thomas
Jefferson--Madison
argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as
"guardians" of individual rights against the other
branches. When the First Congress met in 1789, James Madison, a
congressman from Virginia,
took upon himself the task of drafting a proposed Bill of Rights. He
considered his efforts "a nauseous project." His original set of
proposed amendments included some that were either rejected or substantially
modified by Congress, and one (dealing with apportionment of the House) that
was not ratified by the required three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Some of the rejections were very significant, such as the decision not to adopt
Madison's proposal to extend free speech
protections to the states, and others somewhat less important (such as the
dropping of Madison's
language that required
unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in all
federal cases).
Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a
silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens,
and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them
away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty
by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could
be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment
was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights
retained by the people"....
Most of the protections of the Bill of Rights eventually would be extended
to state infringements as well federal infringements though the
"doctrine of incorporation" beginning in the early to
mid-1900s. The doctrine rests on interpreting the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment as prohibiting states from infringing on the most
fundamental liberties of its citizens.
In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of
gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of
Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There has just been opposition
enough "to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the
federal government of its essential "energy"….”
________________________________________