United States Bill of Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
CreatedSeptember 25, 1789
RatifiedDecember 15, 1791
LocationNational Archives
Author(s)James Madison
 
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
CreatedSeptember 25, 1789
RatifiedDecember 15, 1791
LocationNational Archives
Author(s)James Madison
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States
This article is part of the series:

Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution

Preamble

Amendments to the Constitution

Ratified Amendments
The first ten Amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights

Unratified Amendments

Full text of the Constitution
and Amendments


US Government Portal
Law Portal
Constitutions of states in the Union
Constitutions of other countries

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been extended to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, a process known as incorporation.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the states. While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment, and the other technically remains pending before the states.

The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence, but was the basis for many Supreme Court decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Background

The Philadelphia Convention

Prior to the acceptance and implementation of the United States Constitution, the original 13 colonies followed the Articles of Confederation, created by the Second Continental Congress and ratified in 1781. However, the national government that operated under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to adequately regulate the various conflicts that arose between the states.[1] The Philadelphia Convention set out to correct weaknesses of the Articles that had been apparent even before the American Revolutionary War had been successfully concluded.[1]

The convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The convention convened in the Pennsylvania State House, and George Washington of Virginia was unanimously elected as president of the convention.[2] The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution are among the men known as the Founding Fathers of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was Minister to France during the convention, characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods."[1] Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention.[3]

On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution modeled on previous state declarations, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal motion.[4] However, the motion was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion. Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of protection against tyranny.[5] Another delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist;[5] Hamilton echoed this point in Federalist No. 84.[6] Because Mason and Gerry had emerged as opponents of the proposed new Constitution, their motion—introduced five days before the end of the convention—may also have been seen by other delegates as a delaying tactic.[7] The quick rejection of this motion, however, later endangered the entire ratification process. Author David O. Stewart calls the omission of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution as "a political blunder of the first magnitude"[7] while historian Jack N. Rakove calls it "the one serious miscalculation the framers made as they looked ahead to the struggle over ratification".[8]

Thirteen delegates left before the final signing of the constitution, and three of those still at the convention refused to sign: Mason, Gerry, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia.[9] The remaining 39 delegates signed the final document, and the Constitution was then submitted to the states for ratification, pursuant to its own Article VII.

The Anti-Federalists

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry spoke before Virginia's ratification convention in opposition to the Constitution.

Following the Philadelphia Convention, some leading revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee publicly opposed the Constitution, a position known as "Anti-Federalism".[10] Elbridge Gerry wrote the most popular Anti-Federalist tract, "Hon. Mr. Gerry's Objections", which went through 46 printings; the essay particularly focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the proposed constitution.[11] Many were concerned that a strong national government was a threat to individual rights and that the President would become a king. Jefferson wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."[12]

The pseudonymous Anti-Federalist "Brutus"[a] wrote,

We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.[14]

Brutus continued with an implication directed against the Constitution's framers:

Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.[15]

Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, opposed a bill of rights for much of the ratification period, in part due to the procedural uncertainties it would create.[16] Madison argued against such an inclusion, suggesting that state governments were sufficient guarantors of personal liberty, in No. 46 of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays promoting the Federalist position.[17] Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84, stating that "the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS."[18] He stated that ratification did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, making protections unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."[18] Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta," obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[18]

Patrick Henry argued, in contrast, that the legislature must be firmly informed "of the extent of the rights retained by the people ... being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication."[19]

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise

George Washington's 1788 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette observed, "the Convention of Massachusetts adopted the Constitution in toto; but recommended a number of specific alterations and quieting explanations." Source: Library of Congress

In December 1787 and January 1788, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut—ratified the Constitution with relative ease, though the bitter minority report of the Pennsylvania opposition was widely circulated.[20] In contrast to its predecessors, the Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious, at one point erupting into a fistfight between Federalist delegate Francis Dana and Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry when the latter was not allowed to speak.[21] The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments.[22] The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand jury indictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[23]

Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments.[24] A committee of the Virginia convention headed by law professor George Wythe forwarded forty recommended amendments to Congress, twenty of which enumerated individual rights and another twenty of which enumerated states' rights.[25] The latter amendments included limitations on federal powers to levy taxes and regulate trade.[26]

A minority of the Constitution's critics, such as Maryland's Luther Martin, continued to oppose ratification.[27] However, Martin's allies, such as New York's John Lansing, Jr., dropped moves to obstruct the Convention's process. They began to take exception to the Constitution "as it was," seeking amendments. Several conventions saw supporters for "amendments before" shift to a position of "amendments after" for the sake of staying in the Union. The New York Anti-Federalist "circular letter" was sent to each state legislature proposing a second constitutional convention for "amendments before", but it failed in the state legislatures. Ultimately, only North Carolina and Rhode Island waited for amendments from Congress before ratifying.[24]

Article VII of the proposed constitution stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states had to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states). After a year had passed in state-by-state ratification battles, on September 13, 1788, the Articles of Confederation Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified. The new government was inaugurated with eleven of the thirteen states. The Articles Congress directed the new government to meet in New York City on the first Wednesday in March,[28] and on March 4, 1789, the government began operations.

Proposal by Congress

The First Congress

The new Constitution's first Congress, which met in New York City's Federal Hall, was a triumph for the Federalists. The Senate of eleven states contained 20 Federalists with only two Anti-Federalists, both from Virginia. The House included 48 Federalists to 11 Anti-Federalists, the latter of whom were from only four states: Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and South Carolina.[29]

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and first author of the Bill of Rights

Among the Virginia delegation to the House was James Madison, Patrick Henry's chief opponent in the Virginia ratification battle. In retaliation for Madison's victory at that convention, Henry and other Anti-Federalists, who controlled the Virginia House of Delegates had gerrymandered a hostile district for Madison's planned congressional run and recruited Madison's future presidential successor, James Monroe, to oppose him.[30] Madison defeated Monroe after offering a campaign pledge that he would introduce constitutional amendments comprising a Bill of Rights at the First Congress.[31]

Though Madison had originally opposed a Bill of Rights, he had gradually come to support one in the course of ratification debates. By taking the initiative to propose amendments himself through the Congress, he hoped to preempt a second Constitutional Convention that might have undone the difficult compromises of 1787: a second convention would open the entire Constitution to reconsideration and risk dissolving the federal Government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, "The friends of the Constitution, some from an approbation of particular amendments, others from a spirit of conciliation, are generally agreed that the System should be revised. But they wish the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty."[32] He also felt that amendments guaranteeing personal liberties would "give to the Government its due popularity and stability".[33] Finally, he hoped that the amendments "would acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion".[34]

The federal government's first president, George Washington, endorsed limited amendments to the Constitution in his first address to Congress on April 30, 1789. He urged the legislators to focus on the issue of individual rights rather than making changes to the new government's structure:

"For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid any alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question."[35]

On May 4, Madison announced his intention to present amendments on May 25.[36]

Madison's proposed amendments

Madison's "Notes for speech on Constitutional amendments, June 8, 1789"

Madison attempted to introduce his proposed amendments on May 25 as planned, but other business forced his speech's postponement to June 8.[37] Like Washington, he urged Congress to keep the revision to the Constitution "a moderate one", limited to protecting individual rights.[38] Historians continue to debate the degree to which Madison considered the amendments of the Bill of Rights necessary, and to what degree he considered them politically expedient; in the outline of his address, he wrote, "Bill of Rights—useful—not essential—".[37]

Madison proposed twenty amendments to Congress, one of which was a new preamble to the Constitution with greater stress on natural rights.[38][b] Madison was deeply read in the history of government and used a range of sources in composing the amendments. The English Magna Carta of 1215 inspired the right to petition and to trial by jury, for example, while the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided an early precedent for the right to keep and bear arms and prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.[26]

The greatest influence on Madison's text, however, was existing state constitutions.[40][41] Many of his amendments, including his proposed new preamble, were based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by Anti-Federalist George Mason in 1776.[42] To reduce future opposition to ratification, Madison also looked for recommendations shared by many states.[41]

Congressional revisions

On Madison's concluding his speech, the proposal was quickly attacked by Federalist representatives who felt that immediately amending the new Constitution would create an appearance of instability in the government.[43] The House, unlike the Senate, was open to the public, and members such as Fisher Ames warned that a prolonged "dissection of the constitution" before the galleries could shake public confidence.[44] A procedural battle followed, and after initially forwarding the amendments to a select committee for revision, the House agreed to take Madison's proposal up as a full body beginning on July 21, 1789.[45][46]

The eleven-member committee made some significant changes to Madison's twenty amendments, including eliminating most of his preamble, adding the phrase "freedom of speech, and of the press", and adding what would become the Tenth Amendment, reserving powers to the states.[47] The House debated the amendments for eleven days. Roger Sherman of Connecticut persuaded the House to place the amendments at the Constitution's end so that the document would "remain inviolate", rather than adding them throughout, as Madison had proposed.[48] The amendments, revised and condensed from twenty to seventeen, were approved and forwarded to the Senate on August 24, 1789.[49]

The Senate edited these amendments still further, making 26 changes of its own. Madison's proposal to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government was eliminated, and the seventeen amendments were condensed to twelve.[50] The Senate also eliminated the last of Madison's proposed changes to the preamble.[51] The two versions went to the Joint Committee, and the Senate's version was adopted by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, to be forwarded to the states on September 28.[52][53]

Madison continued to be active in debate and legislative maneuvering throughout this process. Historian Gordon S. Wood writes that "there is no question that it was Madison's personal prestige and his dogged persistence that saw the amendments through the Congress. There might have been a federal Constitution without Madison but certainly no Bill of Rights."[54]

Ratification process

By the time the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, opinions had shifted in both parties. Many Federalists now supported the Bill as a means to silence the Anti-Federalists' most effective critique. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, now opposed it, realizing that the Bill's adoption would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional convention.[55] Anti-Federalists such as Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and direct taxation, intact.[56]

On November 20, 1789, New Jersey ratified eleven of the twelve amendments, rejecting Article II, which regulated Congressional pay raises. On December 19 and 22, respectively, Maryland and North Carolina ratified all twelve amendments.[57] On January 19, 25, and 28, 1790, respectively, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Delaware ratified the Bill, though New Hampshire rejected the amendment on Congressional pay raises, and Delaware rejected Article I, which regulated the size of the House.[57] This brought the total of ratifying states to six of the required ten, but the process stalled in other states: Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify, while Massachusetts ratified most of the amendments, but failed to send official notice to the Secretary of State that it had done so.[56][c]

In February through June of 1790, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island ratified eleven of the amendments, though all three rejected the amendment on Congressional pay raises. Virginia initially postponed its debate, but after Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791, the total number of states needed for ratification rose to eleven. Vermont ratified on November 3, 1791, approving all twelve amendments, and Virginia finally followed on December 15, 1791.[56] Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[58]

Unratified amendments proposed with the Bill of Rights

Article I

After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.[59]

Article I was ratified by ten of fourteen states, but was rejected by Delaware, which favored a small House due to the state's small population.[60] Despite later ratification by Kentucky (bringing the total to eleven of fifteen), the article has never since received the approval of enough states for it to become part of the Constitution.[54]

Article II

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.[59]

Article II was initially ratified by six of fourteen states, but after 1791 did not receive another state ratification for almost a century. In 1873, Ohio's state legislature ratified it in protest of a Congressional pay raise, followed another century later by Wyoming, which ratified in 1978. Gregory Watson, a Texas undergraduate, launched a campaign in 1982 to complete the ratification process, and by 1992, thirty-eight of the fifty states had ratified. Because of the unusual two-century delay in the process, the amendment's adoption was certified by Archivist of the United States Don W. Wilson and approved by a vote of Congress on May 20, 1992. The article then became the Twenty-seventh Amendment.[61]

Application

The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."[62] The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931.[63] Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).[64][65][66] In the twentieth century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).[67] In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments.[68]

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[69]

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today.[70]

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute.[70] Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).[71] Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.[70]

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931)[72] and New York Times v. United States (1971),[73] the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.[70]

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[69]

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of a right to keep and bear arms existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.[74] Eighteenth century English jurist and judge Sir William Blackstone described this right as

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[75]

First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776.

Long a controversial issue in American political, legal and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.

Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.[69]

The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution, and, as of 2012, has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision.[81][82][83]

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[69]

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial.[84] The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[85]

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[69]

The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police.[86]

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[69]

The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that the amendment guaranteed the right to legal representation in all felony prosecutions in both state and federal courts.[87]

Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[69]

The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials. In Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment's requirements could be fulfilled by a jury with a minimum of six members. The Seventh is one of the only parts of the Bill of Rights not to be incorporated (applied to the states).[88]

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[69]

The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation.[89]

The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.[90][91] This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases dealing with means of execution. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found capital punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency" as public opinion changed; others found certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the United States for several years.[92] Executions resumed following Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which found capital punishment to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete sentencing guidelines.[92] The Court has also found that some poor prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as in Estelle v. Gamble (1976).[90]

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]

The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. It was rarely cited before the second half of the 20th century, when it was used as a partial foundation for the right to privacy in several landmark cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which struck down a law banning contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a woman's right to an abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court used the amendment to strike down part of another abortion law, a case the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution describes as "the high-water mark, to date, of judicial willingness to use the Ninth Amendment"; between 1992 and 2000, the Court did not refer to the amendment a single time.[93]

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[69]

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government.[94]

Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights

George Washington had fourteen handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states.[95] The copies for Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania went missing. The New York copy is thought to have been destroyed in a fire,[96] whereas the Pennsylvania copy was taken by a soldier sometime in April 1865.[97] Two unidentified copies of the missing four (thought to be the Georgia and Maryland copies) survive; one is in the National Archives,[98][99] and the other is in the New York Public Library.[100] North Carolina's copy was stolen by a Union soldier in April 1865 and returned to North Carolina in 2005 by FBI Special Agent Robert King Wittman.[100][101]

The National Archives and Records Administration copy of the Bill of Rights is on display in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom. The Rotunda itself was constructed in the 1950s and dedicated in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman, who said, "Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans, can they remain symbols of power that can move the world. That power is our faith in human liberty".[102]

After fifty years, signs of deterioration in the casing were noted, while the documents themselves appeared to be well preserved.[103] Accordingly, the casing was updated and the Rotunda rededicated on September 17, 2003. In his dedicatory remarks, President George W. Bush stated, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power—the equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all."[104] In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 to be Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.[105] In 1991, the Virginia copy of the Bill of Rights toured the country in honor of its bicentennial, visiting the capitals of all fifty states.[106]

See also

References

Notes
  1. ^ Probably Robert Yates[13]
  2. ^ The complete text of Madison's proposed amendments is as follows:
    First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
    That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
    That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
    Secondly. That in article 2nd. section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit, "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made." And that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit, "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amount to after which the proportion shall be so regulated by congress, that the number shall never be less than nor more than but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives; and prior thereto."
    Thirdly. That in article 2nd, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives."
    Fourthly. That in article 2nd, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit,The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed
    The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
    The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
    No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
    The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
    Fifthly. That in article 2nd, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
    Sixthly. That article 3rd, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2nd, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to————dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re—examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.
    Seventhly. That in article 3rd, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit:
    The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same state, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
    In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
    Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
    The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
    The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.
    Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.[39]
  3. ^ All three states would later ratify the Bill of Rights for sesquicentennial celebrations in 1939.[56]
Citations
  1. ^ a b c Lloyd, Gordon. "Introduction to the Constitutional Convention". Teaching American History. Retrieved October 6, 2007. 
  2. ^ Stewart, p. 47
  3. ^ Beeman, p. 59.
  4. ^ Beeman, p. 341.
  5. ^ a b Beeman, p. 343.
  6. ^ Rakove, p. 327
  7. ^ a b Stewart, p. 226
  8. ^ Rakove, p. 288
  9. ^ Beeman, p. 363
  10. ^ Labunski, p. 20
  11. ^ Labunski, p. 63
  12. ^ "Jefferson's letter to Madison, March 15, 1789". The Founders' Constitution. Retrieved March 9, 2006. 
  13. ^ Hamilton et al., p. 436
  14. ^ Brutus, p. 376
  15. ^ Brutus, p. 377
  16. ^ Rakove, p. 325
  17. ^ Labunski, p. 62
  18. ^ a b c Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist Papers, #84. "On opposition to a Bill of Rights.". The Founders' Constitution. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved February 28, 2006. 
  19. ^ Rakove, p. 323
  20. ^ Labunski, pp. 59–60
  21. ^ Beeman, p. 388
  22. ^ Beeman, pp. 389–390
  23. ^ Beeman, p. 390
  24. ^ a b Maier, p. 431.
  25. ^ Labunksi, pp. 113–115
  26. ^ a b Brookhiser, p. 80
  27. ^ Maier, p. 430.
  28. ^ Maier, p. 429.
  29. ^ Maier, p. 433.
  30. ^ Brookhiser, p. 76
  31. ^ Labunski, pp. 159, 174
  32. ^ Labunski, p. 161
  33. ^ Labunski, p. 162
  34. ^ Brookhiser, p. 77
  35. ^ Labunski, p. 188
  36. ^ Labunski, p. 187
  37. ^ a b Labunski, p. 192
  38. ^ a b Labunski, p. 198
  39. ^ "Text of Madison's speech, at the James Madison Center". Archived from the original on March 6, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2006. 
  40. ^ Labunski, p. 199
  41. ^ a b Madison introduced "amendments culled mainly from state constitutions and state ratifying convention proposals, especially Virginia's." Levy, p. 35
  42. ^ Virginia Declaration of Rights. Library of Congress. Accessed July 12, 2013.
  43. ^ Labunski, pp. 203–05
  44. ^ Labunski, p. 215
  45. ^ Labunski, p. 201
  46. ^ Brookhiser, p. 81
  47. ^ Labunski, p. 217
  48. ^ Labunski, pp. 218–20
  49. ^ Labunski, p. 235
  50. ^ Labunski, p. 237
  51. ^ Labunski, p. 221
  52. ^ Adamson, Barry (2008). Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History. Pelican Publishing. p. 93. 
  53. ^ Graham, John Remington (2009). Free, Sovereign, and Independent States: The Intended Meaning of the American Constitution. Foreword by Laura Tesh. Footnote 54, pp. 193–194. 
  54. ^ a b Wood, p. 69
  55. ^ Wood, p. 71
  56. ^ a b c d Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Bill of Rights (United States)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  57. ^ a b Labunski, p. 245
  58. ^ Labunski, p. 255
  59. ^ a b Labunski, p. 278
  60. ^ Amar, pp. 16–17
  61. ^ Bernstein, Richard B. (2000). "Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  62. ^ Wood, p. 72
  63. ^ Labunski, p. 258
  64. ^ Labunski, pp. 258–59
  65. ^ "Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore - 32 U.S. 243 (1833)". Justia.com. Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
  66. ^ Levy, Leonard W. (January 1, 2000). "BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE 7 Peters 243 (1833)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
  67. ^ Labunski, p. 259
  68. ^ Deloria, Vine Jr. (2000). "American Indians and the Constitution". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  69. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Bill of Rights Transcript". Archives.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2010. 
  70. ^ a b c d Cox, Archibald (1986). "First Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  71. ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
  72. ^ Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
  73. ^ New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
  74. ^ McAffee, Thomas B.; Michael J. Quinlan (March 1997). "Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781. 
  75. ^ Blackstone, William (1765–1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the First, of the Rights of Persons. Oxford: the Clarendon Press. pp. 143–144. 
  76. ^ 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
  77. ^ 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
  78. ^ 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
  79. ^ 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)
  80. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012. 
  81. ^ "The Third Amendment". Revolutionary War and Beyond. Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  82. ^ Mahoney, Dennis J. (1986). "Third Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  83. ^ "Third Amendment". U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  84. ^ "Exclusionary rule". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  85. ^ "Fourth Amendment". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  86. ^ "Fifth Amendment". Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2006. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  87. ^ a b "The Sixth Amendment". Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech to Flag Burning.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2008. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  88. ^ Mahoney, Dennis J. (1986). "Seventh Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  89. ^ Bessler, p. 194
  90. ^ a b Krantz, Sheldon (1986). "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  91. ^ "U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History". UXL Encyclopedia of American History. January 1, 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
  92. ^ a b Weisberg, Robert (1986). "Capital Punishment". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  93. ^ Barnett, Randy E. (2000). "Ninth Amendment (Update)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16, 2013. 
  94. ^ "Tenth Amendment". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 19, 2013. 
  95. ^ Frieden, Terry (March 19, 2003). "FBI recovers original copy of Bill of Rights". CNN. Retrieved April 25, 2008. 
  96. ^ "Background on the Bill of Rights and the New York Ratification of the Bill of Rights". U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2007. Retrieved July 28, 2008. 
  97. ^ "History - History in Custody: The U.S. Marshals Service Takes Possession of North Carolina's Copy of the Bill of Rights". U.S. Marshals Service. Retrieved June 14, 2013. 
  98. ^ "Primary Documents in American History: The Bill of Rights". The Library of Congress. 
  99. ^ "History of the Bill of Rights" However, the Maryland Archives report that the unknown National Archives copy {pictured above in Wikipedia article} is the Maryland Copy}
  100. ^ a b "Bill of Rights Returns Home". North Carolina Office of Archives and History. 2005. Retrieved April 25, 2008. 
  101. ^ "The U.S. Marshals Service Takes Possession of North Carolina's Copy of the Bill of Rights". U.S. Marshals Service. Retrieved July 28, 2008. 
  102. ^ "Truman's Remarks in the Rotunda, December 1952". March 14, 2006. 
  103. ^ Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler and Catherine Nicholson, "A New Era Begins for the Charters of Freedom.". March 14, 2006.  Prologue, Fall 2003.
  104. ^ For Know-It-Alls (2008). The United States Bill of Rights for Know-It-Alls. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. p. 27. ISBN 1599862255. 
  105. ^ Grier, Peter (December 15, 2009). "Bill of Rights Day: what Obama says about it". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved July 10, 2013. 
  106. ^ "Bill of Rights Tour Opens in Kansas City". The Nevada Daily Mail. September 18, 1991. Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
Bibliography
  • Amar, Akhil Reed (1998). The Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.
  • Beeman, Richard (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House.
  • Bessler, John D. (2012). Cruel and Unusual: The American Death Penalty and the Founders' Eighth Amendment. UPNE.
  • Brookhiser, Richard (2011) James Madison. Basic Books.
  • Brutus (1787) "To the Citizens of the State of New York". In The Complete Anti-Federalist, Volume 1 (2008). Ed. Herbert J. Storing. University of Chicago Press.
  • Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John (2003) The Federalist: With Letters of Brutus. Ed. Terence Ball. Cambridge University Press.
  • Labunski, Richard E. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press.
  • Levy, Leonard W. (1999). Origins of the Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.
  • Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. Simon and Schuster.
  • Rakove, Jack N. (1996). Original Meanings. Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Stewart, David O. (2007). The Summer of 1787. Simon and Schuster.
  • Wood, Gordon S. (2009). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815. Oxford University Press.

Further reading

External links