in order for people's rights to truly be protected, these protections had to be explicitly stated in writing. Founders such as James Wilson lead the charge in defending the Constitution minus a Bill of Rights. Wilson explained that the national government was only given specific, enumerated powers in the Constitution, and that these powers were delegated to the people. Hence, the national government did not have the power to limit people's rights because it only had those powers specified in the Constitution. Furthermore, he explained that a Bill of Rights can actually be dangerous if it leaves anything out -- if it misses protecting a specific right then the government could then violate that right.
Madison was never against a Bill of Rights, and he later played a significant role in getting it passed. He took the lead so there wouldn't be the "wrong" kinds of amendements. He also took charge because it was important to get the last four states -- Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution -- these states contained 40% of the population. However, Madison believed the design of the government system was more important than a Bill of Rights. If we didn't have the right system -- a large republic and a representative system -- then you could have all the statements you wanted in a Bill of Rights but these would only be "parchment barriers." You had to design a system that would give the national government the powers it didn't have under the Articles of Confederation and this would allow it to protect people's liberties.
Madison actually had wanted the amendments to be inserted into different provisions within the Constitution, rather than added at the end (or put at the beginning, like in Pennsylvania's Constitution). The reason he wanted this was that he wanted the amendments to be placed in their proper context so that when people looked at them later, their meaning would be correctly construed. Roger Sherman and others argued against weaving them in because they believed this couldn't be done without violating the ratification of the Constitution. In other words, the "people" had ratified the original Constitution in state ratifying conventions, but it would be the state legislatures that would ratify the new amendments. So if the amendments were woven in, it would be like creating a new Constitution that the people would then not have an opportunity to ratify.
Professor Marion said that Madison would be pleased with what happened to the Constitution. He would like the amendments that have been added in the last 200 years. Madison understood that to design and carry into being a new government "was a difficult project, not an impossible project." Professor Marion added, "I sometimes tell my students that the framers deserve the respect we give them not because they invented this, but because they took ideas that were out there and created a nation and government that was in line with those principles." In addition to the ideas Madison contributed from his study of ancient constitutions and governments, other founders brought in ideas that were already in many state constitutions.
In Federalist #51, Madison explained that it was the business of the Convention to first come up with a government that could control the people, and secondly to create a government that would control itself. The Constitution was not perfect when it was created. Many important amendments had to be added later to finally protect the rights of all Americans -- amendments that ended slavery, and that gave African Americans and women the right to vote. However, the government we have today is still quite similar to the one Madison designed 223 years ago, and let us hope that it may long continue into the future.
Posted by JENNIFER MITNICK at 6/30/2010 11:00:00 PM
I just got back from an adventure to Monticello -- Thomas Jefferson's house! Two other teachers and I had tried to go there yesterday but we arrived at 5:06pm and the gate was closed, so we just missed it. However, the security guards at the gate were v