From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:47:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxGyoJ.38q@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
# Published by the Department of Public Education
# American Civil Liberties Union
# 132 West 43rd Street.
# New York, NY 10036
# (212) 944-9800
# 
# ACLU Briefing Paper Number 9
# A History of the Bill of Rights
# 
# The first draft of the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances
# that included a strong executive, a representative legislature and a
# federal judiciary, as well as a division of federal and state powers.
# But contrary to the urging of some delegates, the framers did not include
# a specific declaration of rights.  In other words, the Constitution
# specified what the government _could_ do but did not say what the 
# government _could not_ do.

This is what happens when you go to the ACLU for history.  The
Constitution certainly did have a list of things the government
could not do.  See Article I, section 9, where the guarantees
include: "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,"
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed,"
and a number of other limitations on the Federal Government's
power are enumerated.

# The Constitution was signed in September 1787 and sent to the Congress.
# Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. But
# as the people began to examine the document, they came to share the
# sentiments of those who advocated that the  Constitution include a set of
# specific guarantees - among them, the right to free speech, freedom of
# religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and 
# seizure.  The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers

Isn't that cute?  There were more requests for a right to keep and
bear arms than any other, and the ACLU somehow "left that out."

# The Convention unanimously rejected Mason's motion, for a variety of
# reasons.  Some delegates believed that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary
# because government respect for civil liberties would follow automatically
# as a by-product of the limited system they had created, with its division
# of functions, separation of powers, and checks and balances.  Alexander
# Hamilton argued that since Congress had no authority to act beyond the
# scope of its enumerated powers, "Why declare that things shall not be done
# which there is no power to do?"
# 
# Other delegates believed that individual rights should be protected in
# state constitutions, not the federal.  Already, 11 of the 13 states had
# adopted such provisions.
# 
# Still other delegates opposed Mason's motion out of fear that if the
# federal government enumerated certain rights, and not others, only the
# specified rights would be protected.  This danger would be avoided, they
# contended, if the Constitution simply left the rights of Americans
# unspecified.
# 
# A few historians offer a different reason for the rejection of Mason's
# proposal: The Convention delegates had been working hard on the
# Constitution throughout a long, hot summer.  They were tired and wanted
# to go home.

Of course, the fact that a bill of rights would have to deal with
the problem of how slaves had no rights, but other people did,
was raised as an issue after the Convention, as a reason why no
bill of rights was added.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution