Bill of Rights Meaning in the United States

Bill of Rights: Debate Over the Constitution

The original Constitution drafted in 1787 did not include a bill of rights because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not think it necessary to set down a list of rights. Most of the framers believed that because the Constitution created a limited federal government, authorities would not try to establish a national religion, censor a newspaper, or prosecute someone at a secret trial.

When the Constitution went before the states for ratification, members of the Federalist Party, who favored ratification, soon found that failure to include a bill of rights had been a strategic error. The Federalists argued that the people retained all powers not delegated by the proposed Constitution, but the anti-Federalists did not trust this reasoning. Jefferson, then serving as a minister to France, read the proposal and sided with the advocates of a bill of rights. Human rights, he argued, were something ‘no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.’

The Federalists and anti-Federalists both tried to rally support for their position through widely distributed pamphlets. The Federal Republican Society, for example, printed antiratification pamphlets and spread them through the states. This group hoped that the states would reject the Constitution, which would lead to a second federal convention. Some states ratified the Constitution as early as 1787, but debates in these states often turned on the lack of a bill of rights. As the pamphlet war dragged out into the spring of 1788, many Federalists concluded that some concessions on the bill of rights issue were vital.

The debate over ratification extended beyond party lines. Many religious groups, particularly the Baptists, expressed alarm over the lack of explicit religious protections. Printers worried about possible curbs on the press. Old fears from pre-Revolutionary days regarding sweeping government searches, warrants, criminal-trial procedure, and other rights were stirred afresh during the debates.

Dedicated Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton remained unconcerned by the calls for a bill of rights, but Madison and others saw the need to compromise. The Constitution took effect when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it on June 21, 1788. Virginia’s ratifying convention debated bitterly but finally approved the Constitution by a narrow margin five days after New Hampshire’s vote. Discouraged by the Virginia vote, the New York anti-Federalists accepted that the Constitution would be adopted, but also insisted that the First Congress consider a bill of rights. Leaders in Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution because of the lack of a bill of rights.

James Madison kept the idea of a bill of rights alive in Congress. He had lost a Senate seat and barely won election to the House of Representatives, having finally made an unequivocal campaign pledge to fight for a bill of rights. Madison soon found he was almost alone in his concern for prompt action on this promise, but agreed to consider all reasonable suggestions for the new bill of rights. He distilled the essence of English and American personal freedoms, relying heavily on George Mason’s Virginia Bill of Rights.

When Madison reminded fellow members of Congress of the promise to enact a bill of rights, his insistence upon action met with some coolness. He kept fighting, however, and presented his plan to the House in June 1789. Madison originally thought the bill of rights should be incorporated into the original Constitution, rather than offered as separate amendments. After weeks of delay, the House appointed a committee to prepare a bill of rights, with Madison and Roger Sherman of Connecticut serving under Chairman John Vining of Delaware. Sherman favored a separate bill of rights, and his suggestion was finally adopted over Madison’s inclusion plan. After much debate, the House passed 17 proposed amendments.

The Senate combined some amendments and eliminated others, reducing the number to 12. The Senate defeated one amendment that Madison said he prized above all others. It would have prohibited the states from interfering with their citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. But the Senate did not want to bind the states, and regarded the bill of rights as limiting only the federal government. The House and Senate deadlocked over the different versions of the bill of rights, and a joint committee convened to work out a final set of amendments. From this joint conference 12 amendments emerged, which the Congress passed on September 25, 1789.

Support from three-fourths of the states is needed to amend the Constitution. Vermont’s 1791 statehood brought the number of states to 14, so 11 states were required to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Virginia became the 11th to do so on December 15, 1791. Most states did not ratify the first two articles of the Bill of Rights. The first dealt with the method of assigning congressional seats to the states. This amendment was never ratified. The second article, specifying congressional pay rates could not be changed before an intervening House of Representatives election, lay dormant for more than 200 years. The states eventually ratified it in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. The original third article of the Bill of Rights, when ratified in 1791, thus became the First Amendment. (1)

James Madison speech proposing the Bill of Rights

(June 8 1789)

I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the house. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a committee of the whole, I think we might have rose, and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended on what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the legislatures of the several States, conformably to the 5th article of the constitution.

I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments; and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this house. But I cannot do this; and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe that if congress will devote but one day to this subjects, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures.

It appears to me that this house is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or depotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions, that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject; it is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community. I allude in a particular manner to those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those states that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing [in] those states which are.

But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage, arising from the exercise of that power, shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose; and in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents, such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution.

There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution: Some were levelled gainst its structure, because the president was without a council; because the senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose; and controuls the ordinary powers of the state governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provison against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

Note: the speech continues in the entry about the bill of rights amendments.

In this Section

Bill of Rights, Rights Protected, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Rights Protected Summary, Bill of Rights Origins (including Bill of Rights: Rebellion and Agitation for New Rights), Bill of Rights Amendments and Bill of Rights Interpretation.

Resources

Notes and References

1. Encarta Online Encyclopedia

See Also

• Constitution Amendments
• Ratification of the Constitution
• Constitution Ratification Debate
• Rights Protected Summary
• Rights Protected
• Bill Of Rights: Rebellion And Agitation For New Rights
• Bill Of Rights Origins