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

Is our mailing of Rights necessary? Does it put a limit on our political science, or on our liberty? Do these ten amendments hold the kindred center today as they did two-hundred and fourteen years ago? atomic number 18 they instantaneously or have they ever been relevant? These questions were debated by our terra firmas riging 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 moment has been wriggle and stretched by the interpretation and misinterpretation of our legislature and, most of all, by the domineering Court wielding its power of judicial review. It is my belief that these rights were and are short substantial to maintaining any liberty in this country however, I overly trust they have placed a limit on our liberties in that the presidential term has come to restrict many rights that are non expressly declare in the composing and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, it is necessary to convene a figure dedicated to defining and expanding the protected rights and to put these revisions to the people by regular amendment processes requiring ratification by three-quarters of the states.To begin, we motivating to understand what a crown of rights is and where it comes from. Bills, or inclination of an orbits, of rights litter American colonial history, from the Declaration of Rights issued to the British fan tan 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 impertinently nation. These lists were written in response to years of oppression suffered by the colonists at the detention of a tyrannical British government. They outlined certain unmarried rights that were held to be above government regulation by the philosophy of the time. though the scratch line ten amendments do not constitute the first list of rights ever devised, they are the first list incorporated into a case constitution.The founders highly-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 Publius, summarized the federalist cable against the institutionalize of rights. He presented what I f... ...oncerns, their philosophies are outdated. Perhaps our constitution is inadequate. If this is so, should we not diversity it rather than allow the justices of the Supreme Court to decide what it centre as they see fit for the current political, social, or economic temper? It took an stainless nation to decide the wording of our present constitution. Is it fair to distribute its interpretation in the hands of altogether nine men and women? Does it recognise consciousness to allow them to decide that terms which are written as absolutes could, i n some cases, be conditional? I propose a unsubdivided 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 forcefulness of the Bill of Rights and put it back in its rightful place, above the internal government. Until that time, the only way the Bill of Rights will continue to provide aegis from government intrusion is to take it at face value and to check laborious to establish conditions under which it doesnt mean what it says. The Bill of Rights Americas Last disproof Against the Federal Suffocat 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 nations 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 necessary 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.To begin, we need to unders tand what a 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.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 Pu blius, 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 doesnt mean what it says.