Development of the Bill of Rights

When the American colonies rebelled against bulky Britain, the rebels gave their reasons in the Declaration of Indep exterminateence. According to the Declaration, people have unalienable account dexteritys to liberty. The political theory of the new generation shaped the later American Bill of Rights. This revolutionary ideology combined and wove together both the natural beneficials of man and the historic rights of Englishmen. The colonists emphasized natural rights and historic liberties as a result of their ken of governance.Government was potentially hostile to human liberty and happiness. Power was essentially aggressive. The seditious colonists dealt with the problem of aggressive political power by several devices breakup of powers, an independent judiciary, the right of people to have a shargon in their own government by representatives chosen by themselves, and an insistence on the natural and historical rights and liberties of citizens reflected in revolutionary notifications of rights of the several disk operating systems. These concessions to bondage produced about protests.George Mason, delegate from Virginia and a leading advocate of a national bill of rights, complained that delegates from South Carolina and Georgia were more(prenominal) inte correspondenceed in defend the right to import slaves than in promoting the Liberty and Happiness of the people. Some framers rationalized the compromise with slavery on the assumption that the institution would soon die out. In truth, however, a compromise was made in the interest of the Union. While the framers compromised with slavery, they overlyk steps to clog its spread to new claims.Particularly after the adoption of the Bill of Rights the Constitution reflected the Jekyll-and-Hyde portion of the nation. The nation sought simultaneously to protect liberty and slavery. All in all, the Bill of Rights was adopted because of the fear of abuses of power by the national government. It hardly had no operation to the states. The idea that the federal Bill of Rights protects liberty of terminology and machinate, immunity of religion, and other basic rights from violations by the states has become commonplace, veritable(a) for faithfulnessyers. Indeed, many Americans probably accepted this commonplace when careful lawyers knew it was not so.From 1833 to 1868 the lordly administration held that none of the rights in the Bill of Rights limited the states. From 1868 to 1925 it found very a few(prenominal) of these liberties saved from state action. Those the states were clean-handed to flout (so far as federal limitations were concerned) seemed to admit free speech, press, religion, the right to jury essay, freedom from self-incrimination, from infliction of un civilianized and unusual punishments, and more. State constitutions, with their own bills of rights, were available to protect the individual, tho too often they proved to be paper barriers.Most, but not all, scholars cerebrate that the ultimate address was right, at least as a egress of history, up to 1868. They believe, that is, that the founding fathers did not intend for the Bill of Rights to limit the states. In contrast to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which the powers of Parliament are defend against the encroachments of the monarch, the American Bill of Rights was created to protect the individual against the intrusions of the legislative and executive branches of the government.As throng Madison expressed it, If we advert to the nature of Re habitualan Government we shall go up that censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is this more shrewdly affirmed than in the words of the First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thus or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of t he people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Although ix of the thirteen colonies had established churches, quatern did not (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, refreshed Jersey, and Delaware). By the metre the First Amendment was adopted, however, only three states had an established church -Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and computed axial tomography. Of even greater significance is that no two states shared the same apparitional configuration with respect to its population. Not to be overlooked is that in the cristal between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, numerous states had made declarations in support of phantasmal freedom precedent to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.In 1868 the fourteenth Amendment was ratified. first base in the 1920s, the U. S. peremptory settlehip began to apply the Bill of Rights to states done a border now called the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the fo urteenth Amendment. As in the first place passed, the Bill of Rights use only to the federal government and not to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendments enough rampart and due(p) process articles clear applied to the states. Through a series of lengthy illustrations, the butterfly employed in a piecemeal process of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment clauses to include the unlike freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights.In Near v. Minnesota (1931) the controlling judicial system applied freedom of the press to the states. In this strip, the city of Minneapolis essay to smash the publication of scandalous, malicious and defamatory material in themes. A newspaper publishers association, fearing censorship, challenged the Minnesota law on the grounds of violation of freedom of press. The independent judiciary struck down the law by contending that it represent prior restraint of future issues. The virtually important freedom presumptuousness to the press is freedom from prior restraint, the freedom not to be censored.The process of nationalizing the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment continued in the area of free exercise of religion. In Hamilton v. Board of Regents (1934), the tribunal held that freedom of religion was protected by the First Amendment against invasion by the national government and by the states. This decision was confirmed in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). This case questioned the thoroughgoingity of a Connecticut law which banned solicitation of money for religious or kindly reasons unless(prenominal) approved by the secretary of the public welfare council.This particular ex officio had the authority to decide whether a fund-raising cause was truly a religious one. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court command that the principle violated religious freedom and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. From the critical standpoint, the Bill of Rights not only constitutionally protec ts individual rights of citizens, such(prenominal) as freedom of religion, peaceable assembly, right to keep and bear arms, trial by jury, but it likewise secures the entire system of American pop values and implementation of democracy in reality.For instance, freedom of press, state of in the First Amendment, does not mean only that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom ofpress. Considering the fact independent media is one of the pillars of modern democracy, this constitutional guarantee aims to secure democratic principles of the country. Moreover, the freedom of press implies automatically the absence seizure of any censorship limiting the execution of freedom of speech, which is too declared in the First Amendment and similarly is to protect democratic principles.The Bill of Rights has been created not only to protect freedoms and liberties of American citizens on individual levels, but also to secure the position of a person before the government. For example, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be forced in any distressing case to be a witness against oneself. At the same time, from my personal viewpoint, the perfect importance of the Bill of Rights is its long lasting effect and its tremendous wreak on American legislative and judicial system.Firstly, the Bill triggered the adoption by the Congress of several important acts protecting civil liberties like courteous Rights spell. Secondly, because the Bill is an integral and vital part of US Constitution, and thus the last-ditch legal power, legislative and judicial system have been continuously modify constitutional dogma on individual rights. For example, one can poster during 1960-70s the constitutional rights of public employees to freedom of speech and association, procedural due process, and gibe protection have also been vastly expanded.Historically the Constitution has retained its flexibility because interpretations of its meaning have changed. Choosing b etween two or more sets of competing values, the Supreme Court has vie a major role in maintaining this flexibility. A significant trend has been the extension of civil rights to the previously powerless. For instance, the involvement of the U. S. Supreme Court in civil rights for wispys is long-standing, dating back to issues from the days of slavery.In the Dred Scott case (1857), head Justice Taney ruled that no murkys, slave or free, were citizens, and that blacks had no citizenship rights (Hall, 38). In 1883, two decades after the courteous War and the official end of slavery, the Court ruled on five separate suits affecting the rights of blacks, and collectively called the Civil Rights Cases (1883). These cases arose in response to the Civil Rights serve of 1875 which prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection and public accommodations. In these cases, the public accommodations portions of the 1875 act were challenged.The Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amen dment forbade discrimination by states but it made no mention of discriminatory acts committed by individuals. Since the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination by individuals and private businesses, the Court ruled that the act had overstepped congressional authority and was therefore unconstitutional. By the end of universe of discourse War II, the Supreme Court had become more supportive of civil rights for blacks. It struck down the all- vacuous primary in Smith v.Allright (1944), arguing that the popular party was in essence an agent of the state and was therefore compositors case to the Fifteenth Amendment. During the late 1940s and the 1950s, the Court followed the trends begun earlier of moving apart from the doctrine of separate but personify (Hall, 51). This may be seen in the cases of Sipuel v. Oklahoma (1948), Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). In the Sipuel case, which was similar to the Gaines case, the Court ordered Oklahoma to provide a separate but equate law instill for a black woman and stressed the pack for equality in facilities.In Sweatt v. Painter, the state of Texas had established a separate black law check but it was inferior to the white law give instruction at the University of Texas in the size of its faculty and the quality of its library and student body. The court ruled that the black law school had to be improved. The Court nearly upset the separate but equal doctrine in the McLaurin case in which Oklahoma had allowed a black student to succeed a white graduate school but had segregated him from the rest of the students by designating separate sections of the library, cafeteria and classrooms for him.The Court struck down these segregation provisions, claiming that they interfered with the ability of the black student to exchange ideas with other students, a requisite for a good education. Although these cases fell short of invalidating the separate but equal principle, they m ade segregation at the graduate school level more difficult to implement. Perhaps the most significant civil rights cases to aid blacks in the fight for equality were the two Brown cases in the 1950s.Brown v. Board of reproduction I (1954) arose as the result of a suit against Topeka, Kansas where Linda Brown, a black child, was not permitted to attend a segregated white school four blocks from her home. In Brown I, on a lower floor the leadership of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court overturned the Plessy decision of separate but equal in the public schools by declaring that the separate but equal doctrine made black children feel inferior. In Brown v.Board of Education II (1955), the Court ruled on how to accomplish desegregation, concluding that local school boards should establish plans for desegregation under the supervision of federal district judges and with all deliberate speed. Despite these court rulings, southern school boards were slow to respond and r educeed court orders by closing public schools and placing white children in private schools. Consequently, desegregation was only implemented very slowly.Women are not a minority but they have historically experient legal discrimination based on their gender. The Supreme Court has played an important role in the expansion of rights for women. Overall the Court has been less important in the expansion of womens rights than it has been in the extension of rights to blacks and other racial minorities. A major reason for the less important role of the Court is that womens rights have mostly been broadened through legislation. Many womens rights cases addressed by the Supreme Court have been concerned with employment.Early court decisions followed a trend of protectionism and upheld restrictions on the nature and conditions of employment for women. In Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), the Supreme Court upheld a state law preventing women from practicing law. Not until the 1970s did U. S. Su preme Court rulings begin to impinge on away from the restrictive, protectionist trend of the past. Reed v. Reed (1971) was the first instance of the Court striking down a state law which discriminated against women. Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) overturned the precedent set in Hoyt v. Florida. Phillips v.Martin-Marietta (1971) ruled that employers could not discriminate against mothers of preschool children, in spite of fears that they might often miss work to care for their children. In Stanton v. Stanton (1975) the Court struck down a Utah law which required break fathers to support sons until they were twenty-one under the assumption that they would need support term being educated, while daughters had to be supported only until they were eighteen under the assumption that they would get married and be supported by their husbands. Beginning in the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to states through a process now called the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. As originally passed, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendments equal protection and due process clauses clearly applied to the states. Through a series of lengthy cases, the Court engaged in a piecemeal process of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment clauses to include the various freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. In Near v.Minnesota (1931) the Supreme Court applied freedom of the press to the states. In this case, the city of Minneapolis tried to suppress the publication of scandalous, malicious and defamatory material in newspapers. A newspaper publishers association, fearing censorship, challenged the Minnesota law on the grounds of violation of freedom of press. The Supreme Court struck down the law by contending that it represented prior restraint of future issues. The most important freedom given to the press is freedom from prior restraint, the freedom n ot to be censored.In many cases the statements imbed in the Bill of Rights are impacted directly or indirectly through the process of governance in the United States. One of the most peculiar examples of this impact is adoption of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, normally known as the Patriot Act. This act significantly expands the power of the federal government to investigate, detain, and deport those people who the government suspects are linked to terrorist activity and other crimes.The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires the government to prove to a judicial officer that it has probable cause of a crime before it conducts an invasive search to find evidence of that crime or in exact words, this Amendment declares that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against wild searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause in the lead the enactment of the Patriot Act, if the primary purpose was a criminal investigation, the law enforcement officials had to first prove the higher standard of probable cause. Investigating criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of surveillance. Now American cabaret witnesses how one of the most fundamental statements of the Bill of Rights, particularly that one protecting individual freedoms from the state, is challenged.The change made by Section 218 of the Patriot Act authorizes unconstitutional activity by impinging on the Fourth Amendment protection that requires probable cause. Section 218 now provides law enforcement officials with a tool to avoid probable cause when conducting criminal investigation surveillance. The adoption of the Patriot Act has been triggered with the war the United States declared against terrorism. Interestingly, the same event, the war on terrorism, challenged some other impor tant element of the Bill of Rights, namely the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.Practically, this statement aims to secure individuals from unconstitutional exercise on the behalf of the government. Importantly, this article provides Americans with the right to be tried by unprejudiced courts with application of lawful procedures and laws. However, during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government intentionally deterred in prisons many prisoners of war (identifying them as terrorists) without court orders, indictments and further court hearings. here one can notice the constitutional collision, in which the rights of the US government during wartime (including deterring of individuals without due process clause) challenges the statements embedded in the Bill of Rights.Works CitedBarnett, steamy E. ed., 1989. Ninth Amendment. supra note 29, at 18Bailyn, Bernard . 1967. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.Ely, J. 1980. Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.Hall, Kermit L. 1989. The Magic Mirror. Law in American History, New York Oxford University Press.Levine, James P. 1992. Juries and Politics, Pacific Grove, CA Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Madison, James. November 27, 1794. Republicanism. actors line in Congress. Annals of Congress 934.Nelson, William E. 1988. The Fourteenth Amendment From Political Principle to juridic Doctrine. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.Schwartz, B. 1971. The Bill of Rights. A Documentary History. pp. 222-226.Wiecek, W. 1976. The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848. Ithaca Cornell University Press. P. 74