Something momentous in the democratic process of the United States Republic happened 225 years ago, today, on December 15, 1791, when Virginia ratified 10 out of 12 proposed Constitutional amendments, thereby making them officially part of the United States Constitution.
They contain some important rights including freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a trial by jury, and prohibition of unusual and cruel punishment, among others.
I feel that the Bill of Rights, in many ways, represents how spirited debate is a hallmark in the democratic process of our country, borne out of similar involved discussions about the content of the Constitution, and then its ratification process, with some states refusing to ratify unless the new Congress proposed amendments with important rights. Yet some felt the Constitution as it was written already protected rights. Others thought there would be no good determination for what right to include--like should the right to turn over in bed be included? And others felt it was dangerous to list rights explicitly, because then the government could deny rights not included, which undoubtedly led to the inclusion of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Nevertheless, the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights became enshrined in the US Constitution, and they continue to spur debate to this day, especially given how much interpretation is involved when using them to decide current issues, like when the Supreme Court makes rulings.
Interpretation led the Supreme Court to imply a right to abortion in the right to privacy stated in the 4th Amendment in its Roe vs. Wade ruling.
Another Supreme Court ruling gave the name "Miranda" to the rights of the 5th Amendment when police didn't notify Ernesto Miranda of those right when he was accused of committing a crime.
As for the 1st Amendment rights, there have been many cases in recent years that have definitely pushed the envelope as far as what they mean, and what they can protect, sometimes even extreme examples like the Westboro Baptist Church, speech made by political action committees, and desecration of the US flag.
I was challenged to ponder these kinds of cases at the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum that was formerly at the Chicago Tribune Tower. It was a wonderful museum that had a variety of exhibits discussing the implications of the 1st Amendment rights. It's now housed in a mobile format that travels around to various events.
Debate over intense issues rages especially so regarding gun rights. When I was in middle school, I recall my 8th grade social studies teacher drawing our attention to the wording of the 2nd amendment as being part of the debate. This came to mind in a conversation I was having at dinner a few weeks ago, when, while talking with a woman from Britain, we turned to politics, which included gun rights. I opened up my pocket copy of the US Constitution and showed her the actual wording of 2nd amendment, and explained that there's debate over whether the right to bear arms applies in general to owning guns, or is more specifically tied to having proper weaponry for a militia comprised of regular citizens.
I was once at a book discussion at Maze Library about Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. The librarian leading the discussion pointed out that there's so much heated debate over Constitutional issues today, just like there was back at the start of the United States Republic. They debated and discussed, and somehow managed to eek out a compromise, which lends the Constitution to being something that will continued to be debated.
So as we mark 225 years of the Bill of Rights, let's continue in these important discussions, as part of engaging the democratic process of our Republic to create a more free society, with justice and liberty for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment