The Bill of Rights and The State of Nature

Thomas Jefferson once said, “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” Jefferson borrowed from Locke again in the Declaration of Independence, citing both the “State of Nature” and “Nature’s God.”
In order to understand the contemporary political landscape of the United States, one must first be aware of a number of political theories including, at a minimum, what exactly “rights” are. After all, our first President recognized the importance of public awareness for the sake of the public good:

“Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." -George Washington, Farewell Address, 19 September 1796

In a society more adept in the lives of American Idol contestants than of Presidential candidates, we have arrived at a critically disturbing low level of public awareness. The purpose of this blog is not to chronicle the history of the demise of public perception (perhaps I will tackle that bear in the future). It is, however, to make my small contribution to curbing the downward trend. So…let’s begin.

Politicians often like to throw patriotic-sounding words out like “democracy” and “liberty” when referring to the government they serve. Unfortunately these words are abused not only in the United States. Take the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for example. Also known as North Korea, this state is not a democracy, not a republic, and is arguably one of the most repressive and despotic regimes in history. Indeed, the DPRK’s human rights violation makes the British Parliament’s offenses against the colonists look like time-out. Their people revere Dear Leader (Kim Chong-il) as a deity in human form, and they really believe it because they have no opportunity to know anything else. The grip is that tight. So from one extreme to the other, what are rights and why do we have many while North Koreans have none?
As political philosopher John Locke stated in his three Treatises on Government, people are born with rights. Yes, all people, everywhere, are born with rights. These rights, in a nutshell, include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sound familiar?). The environment in which you enter this world, however, can have a profound effect on your realization of said rights. If you are born in the United States you have a reasonable chance at enjoying at least most of your God-given rights. If you are born in the People’s Republic of China (there’s those pesky people’s words again!) you won’t do so well with speaking your mind (see: Tiananmen Square Massacre).



So what is the fundamental difference between the states mentioned? The difference is the style of government (and therefore the political philosophy of its founders) and if that government understands its purpose. The Founders of the United States were extraordinarily frustrated with their rulers. You won’t read long before you notice the vile disdain most of those men held for their government in Great Britain. Ironically, it was British philosophers that arguably sparked the thinking that led to the American Revolution.

When the brightest minds in the United States convened to draft a new form of government in 1787 (after the failure of the too-weak Articles of Confederation), they had a monumental series of decisions to make. They had to strike a balance between the oppressive British-style rule and the uselessness of the Confederation. Led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay through their series of articles called the Federalist Papers, a new Constitution was drafted. The Bill of Rights is what I find paradoxically interesting.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Brace yourself: As a matter of principle, I disagree with the Bill of Rights altogether. “What!? How can you say that!” you may well ask. I agree completely with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84. The Constitution, as it exists, already covers what the Bill of Rights essentially reiterates. Unfortunately, many states would not ratify the Constitution unless it included a Bill of specific and enumerated Rights. So, they drafted the first ten amendments protecting freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, petition, firearms ownership, against self-incrimination, etc.. The very creation of the Bill of Rights creates an illusion the Founding Fathers never intended. It appears as though the Bill of Rights is from where our rights originate. This is critical because it is the very foundation on which our government is built. Fortunately, however, these genius men had the presence of mind to include the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which read, respectively:

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

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.

To me, the Ninth Amendment means that just because a certain specific right may not appear verbatim on the list in the previous eight amendments does not mean its not a right the people retain. Likewise, the Tenth Amendment takes it a step further and says that if something is not listed here, the Federal government has no authority in that case. Yes, look around you for a violation of that one. In fact, you’re probably physically touching something right now that is unconstitutionally regulated by the federal government.
You know that feeling you get when you get out of the hot tub and jump in the pool? Well, if the pool water was 35 degrees, that’s the feeling I get when I look at Barack Obama’s coming Administration. Never before has the Constitution been so verbally disparaged and the offender continue to hold a public job, much less the highest office in the land.

I hope I have scratched the tip of the iceberg for you. Next time you see the talking heads on CNN begging for a bailout, stop and think about what the Constitution might have to say about it. Better yet, stop to think about the Founding Fathers twitching in their graves at the idea of Congress nationalizing the Big 3. My, how far we have fallen from principle.

Edited for Clarification: While I disagree with the establishment of the Bill of Rights in principle, I vigorously defend it in practice...there is a difference.

Furthermore, I have already had multiple liberals point out that, in reference to Washington's quote, institutions of knowledge already exist. True. However, that does not change the fact that most of America is simply ignorant. This video will speak for itself: How Obama Got Elected