• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • This Bill of Rights Day, Celebrate the Whole Constitution

    Many Americans praise the first ten amendments to our Constitution, collectively called the Bill of Rights, as providing the true protection of our liberty. But if the Bill of Rights had not been added on December 15, 1791 (which we now celebrate as Bill of Rights Day), would our fundamental liberties still be protected? Would the original Constitution be enough to guard our liberty?

    A bill of rights was controversial during the ratification debates over the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists made it their rallying cry. Many founders, though, rejected the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution. In Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that a bill of rights was, at best, unnecessary to guard liberty and, at worst, an invitation to federal overreach. Bills of rights are “stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.”

    But the Constitution is not a bargain between subjects and kings. It is a document of limited, enumerated powers, forming the architecture of our liberty. “We the people” vest each branch of government with specific powers. In Article I, Congress receives “powers herein granted” —not legislative power over everything and anything. Nowhere in the Constitution have “we the people” given Congress power to regulate speech or religion, or to police the states generally. Hamilton concludes: “it is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, [bills of rights] have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.”

    Hamilton’s larger objection to bills of rights, though, is that they “would afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted.” After all, he asks “why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” Hamilton’s words echo Madison’s concerns in Federalist 48 that legislatures in particular are prone to seek additional powers. Though a bill of rights may be framed as limits on legislative power, it tacitly introduces new areas of authority and federal reach.

    Indeed, we see that Congress’s ambition is still a problem for limited government. Long before Obamacare, Congress showed no restraint in its legislation, addressing everything from light bulbs to orchids. True, Congress may not rely on the Constitution’s first ten amendments (or point to any other provision for that matter) to support its outlandish proposals. But Hamilton’s fears of legislative overreach, with or without Constitutional support, were not unfounded.

    Ultimately, the Constitution was ratified and the First Congress amended it to include the Bill of Rights. But Hamilton’s argument was not completely ignored. As Matthew Spalding explains in A Citizen’s Introduction to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments briefly encapsulate the two-fold theory of the Constitution:  “the purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights that stem not from the government but from the people themselves, and the powers of the national government are limited to those delegated to it by the people.”

    The Bill of Rights is not the entire Constitution and ought not to be praised at the expense of the Articles of the Constitution, which establish the institutions and processes necessary to guard against tyranny and secure individual liberty. The Constitution itself is the chief guard of our liberties and is more important than any amendment. This Bill of Rights Day, then, let’s celebrate the whole Constitution—not just the amendments.

    Do you have New Common Sense? Sign up today!

    Posted in Featured, First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to This Bill of Rights Day, Celebrate the Whole Constitution

    1. Patrick, Pa. says:

      What good is a bill of rights if the congress and executive branch is ruled by ideological activists and agenda setters?

      A bill of rights is useless if those in power trample it over, and unnecessary if they genuinely respect the rights of others.

    2. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States."

      James Madison

      Presidential Veto of the Internal Improvements Bill – March 3, 1817.

    3. West Texan says:

      The Bill of Rights is the keystone to limited government and the separation of powers. Social progressives have been chipping away at these foundational amendments for over a century. Such is Obama's "hope" finalizing the collapse of our country's framework of federalism. Obama's "change" to big government socialism will then be realized with the support and backing of Reid, Peolosi, Soros, et al. Americans cannot afford another four years of these far left wannabe tyrants. We are a multiple sovereign nation with inversely proportional powers, which were to be more limited as they moved further from the people. The federal government was to have the least power. They're limited to national security, foreign and interstate commerce. Today's progressive trappings of federal power over domestic affairs is not only perverse, but has seriously corrupted our founders' homeostatic design. For this reason, it's not a question of if the union will implode, but a matter of when it meets its demise.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.