March 30, 2009 – In an effort to understand the mindset of the people I am trying to reach with my articles, I decided to perform a little experiment. A few days ago I overheard some people discussing the economic crisis. One of them was all in favor of our government bailing out as many companies as needed to revitalize our economy.

Taking the chance that I didn’t get punched in the face right then and there, I said, “You know, people who don’t know what they are talking about should just keep their mouths shut.” There was an uncomfortable moment of silence, then this person, instead of knocking me on my ass, responded by saying, “You know, you aren’t the only one who has the freedom of speech.”

Seizing upon the moment, I said, “Oh yeah, where does it say you have the right to say whatever you want, and why would anyone give people that right?” I didn’t expect an answer, and wasn’t disappointed, because he said, “Well, since you’re the Constitutional expert you ought to know the answer. So why bother asking me?”

Not wanting to push my luck too far, I said, “The First Amendment protects our right to freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion, but can you tell me why the founders thought it important that we retain that right?” Obviously this person had had enough of me, because they said, “Yeah, so idiots like you can bad mouth our government.”, then he stormed off.

I wasn’t picking on this person in particular, I just wanted to find out what exactly people know about the Bill of Rights, and more specifically, the history behind it. Obviously not very much.

This little experiment served to reinforce my belief that very few people in this country know much at all about our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or even how close we came to not having either one.

I suppose, being the kind of public service guy I am, that I should try to do something to remedy that. Even so, it all will be for naught if those who need this information the most refuse to take the time to read it. Some people, it seems, just can’t be bothered with something as boring and trivial as the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Nevertheless, seeing as how I love to write, I may as well endeavor to present the facts, as I understand them, regardless of whether anyone wants to take the time to read the end result. So, here goes…

To keep this as brief as possible, let it be enough to say that a new Constitution was not the reason the delegates were sent to the Philadelphia Convention to produce.

The intent was to amend the existing Articles of Confederation so that Congress could more easily impose taxes, as well as give them more control over the regulation of commerce. That was the sole purpose of the convention, nothing more.

Whatever their reasons, the delegates to the Convention took it upon themselves to start from scratch and create a new document, which would outline a new system of government entirely.

It was not an easy process, and on occasion some delegates had given up all hope of coming to any kind of agreement. At one point in time one delegate went so far as to say that the convention ‘was on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair.’ George Washington was so frustrated that he regretted having any agency in the proceedings whatsoever. He went on to call certain delegates, “narrow minded politicians’.

However, come to an agreement they did. Many were not satisfied with the end result, but as Benjamin Franklin said on September 17, 1787, “There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” Nevertheless, Franklin agreed to the document, as presented, “because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best.”

Now that the delegates had come to an agreement, it was up to the states to accept it. From the moment the Constitution was presented for public consideration, it excited a strong debate amongst those in favor of ratification, (the Federalists), and those opposed, (the anti-Federalists).

Chief among the anti-Federalists were men like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and George Mason. They considered themselves to be the heirs of the spirit of the Revolution, and therefore opposed the proposed Constitution and its lack of safeguards for the rights and liberty of the people.

The anti-Federalists were very active in voicing their concerns, often by publishing articles in the local papers which where written under pseudonyms like The Federal Farmer, Cato, Brutus, and Cincinnatus.

In opposition to the proposed Constitution, Patrick Henry wrote, “You ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for instead of securing your rights you may lose them forever. If this new Government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they should be disappointed – their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise.”

Those who supported the Constitution greatly feared that public opinion might be so strong, that their hope for ratification might never come to fruition. So, under the pseudonym of Publius, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a series of articles entitled the Federalist Papers, which were published to ease the concerns felt by those who opposed ratification.

Although Pennsylvania was among the first states to ratify the new Constitution, the dissenters voiced their concerns with the following statement, “Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce.”

The arguments, both pro and con, became so intense, that local papers went so far as to print, “…violent threats against those who should dare to think for themselves, and tar and feathers were liberally promised to all those who would not immediately join in supporting the proposed government…”

It was amidst this atmosphere that the various ratifying conventions met to discuss whether or not to accept the new Constitution. Regardless of how they felt when it came to the new Constitution, each of them understood the weight of the burden which was upon them, and is explained by John Jay, in Federalist #2, “WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.”

Of primary concern was the protection of the rights of the people, and those of the states, from encroachment by the proposed federal government. Therefore, each delegate took a solemn oath, or affirmation, stating something along the lines, “…that he will not do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state.”

During the attempts to ensure ratification, a Bill of Rights was suggested, to ease the fears of those who felt this new government might encroach upon, what they felt were rights that no government on earth had the right to infringe upon.

This would seem like something that would be agreeable to all, yet even this idea met opposition. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in Federalist #84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? ”

Those in favor of a Bill of Rights included Thomas Jefferson, who said, “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Eventually, by the year 1789, the Constitution was finally ratified, although some states, among them Massachusetts, only did so after assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added to protect people’s rights.

So, you can see, it was no easy matter to ratify the Constitution. Getting a Bill of Rights added to it was almost as arduous task. Each state had its own list of rights that they felt were worthy of consideration.

For example, Virginia proposed 20 amendments, New Hampshire proposed 12, Pennsylvania 17, and New York 21. It must be remembered, for an amendment to be become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures.

Far too many people today just take for granted that our Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, ten amendments that serve to protect our rights. They often have no understanding of the reason why the founders singled out these ten, and intent of each of them.

To give an example, allow me to discuss briefly the second amendment, one which, in my opinion, has already been violated so many times as to render it almost nullified.

As it currently reads, the second amendment now states, “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.”

I often hear it argued that because there is a comma between the militia clause, and the people’s right to keep and bear arms, that these two clauses are inexorably tied to each other.

However, the use of a comma, although it can tie two subjects to each other, can also tie two completely independent statements to each other, much as a semicolon does. To understand these amendments it is vital that you be aware of the proper use of punctuation if you are to properly interpret them.

It would also help if people were to consider the various amendments proposed by the states themselves, particularly how they were worded. In regards to the second amendment, North Carolina offered the following, which is similar to the second amendment we recognize today, “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state.”

Notice North Carolina’s use of the semicolon to separate the right to keep and bear clause, and the militia clause. According to the rules of grammar and punctuation, “The semicolon is a simple piece of punctuation … It has two main uses, which are both easy to identify. You use it to connect two independent clauses together into one sentence, and you use it as a super-comma. ”(emphasis added)

Two independent clauses! That means that either one could stand on its own as a statement of fact, without being tied to the other. If that be the case, then the people, according to the amendment, would retain their right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not there was a need for a militia.

If that weren’t clear enough, the seventh proposed amendment from the state of Pennsylvania stated, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them.”

In this version, there were no restrictions, no limitations, and no other clauses to which that right could be tied. It was simply that the people have the right to be armed for their defense, or the defense of the state, or their country.

Yet both state, and the federal government have passed so many laws which prohibit us from exercising, what our founders believed was, a natural right, and one worthy of being singled out to ensure it was not violated.

It would be wise to remember the true intent of the second amendment was not to protect our homes, not to hunt game, but as a last resort to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

As James Madison once said, “Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you posses over the people of almost every other nation.”

The right to protect ourselves, from both those who would harm us, and from our government, is an inherent right, and one which we would be wise to hold on to if we wish to remain free and independent. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

The second amendment is one that certain states felt obligated to include among the amendments they proposed to the new Constitution. However, there was one suggested amendment which can be found among those proposed by every single state.

Every state in the Unions was weary that this newly formed federal government would try to infringe upon the rights, and sovereignty of the states. So each state recommended that an amendment be added to limit the ability of the federal government to infringe upon the powers of the sovereign states.

For instance, the proposal from New York stated, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States.”

New Hampshire recommended the following, “First, That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.”

South Carolina suggested, “This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.”

Finally, to put it succinctly, Maryland made the following recommendation, “That Congress shall exercise no power but what is expressly delegated by this Constitution.”

As you can see, to a state, they all felt it was of the utmost importance that some sort of declaratory statement be added, restricting the powers of the federal government to those specific items contained in Article 1, Section 8.

These proposals were taken into consideration and formed the basis of what we now know as the Tenth Amendment, which states, “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.”

The tenth amendment also had a companion amendment, the Ninth amendment. The Ninth Amendment is the only amendment of its kind in that it was written to guide us in our interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In plain English, the Ninth Amendment means that, just because the Constitution does not specifically mention a right, it, in no way, insinuates that the right does not exist, Furthermore, it declares that even though a right may not be specified, the government does not have the authority to deny you the freely exercise that right.

Those who agreed to the ratification of the Constitution felt that we were in possession of a multitude of rights, far too many to be listed individually. As James Iredell proclaimed in the South Carolina Ratifying Convention, “[I]t would be not only useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation; and it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it”

One of the primary arguments of the Anti-Federalists was that the broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution would allow the government to extend their power to “…almost everything about which any legislative power can be employed.” If you look closely at what our Constitution says, and what our government actually does, you will see that the Anti-Federalists fears were in fact correct.

Taken hand in hand, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are strict limitations of power which were imposed upon our government. One was to protect the sovereignty of the states, while the other was to protect the rights of the people, even though those rights may not specifically be listed.

Liberty is something we all take for granted. However, among these men who were saddled with the responsibility of deciding which powers to grant this new government, it was something they fervently strode to protect. It is also something we should be grateful for, and ensure that we are worthy it.

In closing, allow me to tell you a little story. When I was serving in the military, a series of events, all of which were my own doing, caused me to receive an Article 15. My commander was an imposing man, and as I stood in front of him, I felt like I was standing before God Almighty, waiting to be judged for my sins.

When he asked me why I thought the United States Air Force should continue to employ Neal H. Ross, the only thing I could think of was something my dad used to pound into my head over and over, ‘Honesty is the best policy.’

So, I told him, ‘Sir, I have no one to blame but myself. I screwed up and you have every right to throw me out on my ass. (yeah I said that!) Sir, I think I have learned my lesson, and if you will give me another chance, I won’t screw up again.’

That was it. I didn’t grovel, and I didn’t try to blame anyone but myself for the situation I found myself in. That was the way I had been raised, if you screwed up and got caught, be a man, don’t lie about it, just accept responsibility and the accompanying punishment.

So, as I was dismissed, I felt somewhat better. First I wasn’t immediately booted out on my ass, and secondly telling the truth like that had taken a load off my chest. Now, all I had to do was await my punishment, which was to come at a later date.

The reason I am telling this story is not to give you any tidbits about my past. No, the reason I am telling this is that core principle, to take responsibility for your actions.

Our country is in its final days of existence as the freedom loving republic as envisioned by our founders. Sure we will be around as a people, and we might even retain the name United States of America. But that’s it. America, as envisioned by those who bequeathed the blessings of liberty onto their posterity, will have ceased to exist.

That is unless enough people pull their heads out of their asses, unplug our televisions, and start to re-learn the principles upon which our system of government was founded. It would not hurt matters if they also learned just a bit about our nations history, and not the condensed, sanitized version they teach in school.

If the American people do not do this, and, because of their ignorance and apathy, surrender their rights in return for a handful of paltry benefits, they will have dishonored those who fought and died so as to bequeath to us the inestimable gift of liberty, and in so doing, will have given up the right to call themselves Americans.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?“

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal

The Ross Archive on The Federal Observer