Opinion: Why the Bill of Rights are significant

  • By JACK RAKOVE
  • Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:02am
  • Opinion

Editor’s note: This is part of a Philadelphia Inquirer series celebrating 225th anniversary of Bill of Rights.

Every clause in the Bill of Rights has its own history, and each of those histories has two main parts. We need one story about the origins of particular rights, and another about their modern judicial interpretation.

Tracing the origins of all these rights involves a set of laborious forays into legal history that pay special attention to the development of English common law and its American adaptations. Understanding the current and oft-changing interpretation of the rights identified in the first eight amendments to the Constitution similarly requires mastering a vast corpus of judicial decisions and their scholarly interpretations. Legions of law professors ply this trade, with a raft of law reviews ready to market their products.

But the very idea of having a bill of rights also has its own history. Today, many Americans remain ignorant or confused about which rights are actually cited in the Bill of Rights. And when pollsters ask them whether specific rights really should be protected, a depressing portion of Americans appear to have a low opinion of its actual contents.

But there is one thing we all know: If a specific right has been infringed, the Bill of Rights gives us the authority to litigate our claims. For every right there must be a remedy, and the most obvious remedy is to find a lawyer or an agency like the ACLU and go to court.

That idea dominates modern thinking about the implementation of a bill of rights. But it was actually something of a novelty to its framers, most notably including James Madison, the leading author of our first constitutional amendments. When the American revolutionaries first drafted bills of rights in 1776, the year of independence, they had other ends in view. But over the course of the next decade, they began to reconceive the constitutional “work” that bills of rights could actually do.

As Americans began moving toward independence, they realized that they would need to write new constitutions of government to replace the old colonial charters. By 1780, 11 states had done this, and eight of these states wrote declarations of rights as part of this process. In six states, these declarations were companion documents enacted in conjunction with the process of creating new governments. In only two states — Pennsylvania (1776) and Massachusetts (1780) — were the declarations of rights inserted in the text of the Constitution.

In the revolutionary context of 1776, declarations of rights were not regarded as legal commands that governments were obligated to enforce. Instead they stated general principles of republican governance that Americans were morally obliged to follow. The operative verb of these declarations was “ought, not “shall.

A decade later, when the movement that led to the great Constitutional Convention of 1787 was getting underway, some Americans began thinking of declarations (or bills) of rights in more advanced terms. By then, Americans had worked out a better basis for distinguishing the authority of a constitution as supreme law from the lesser authority of ordinary legislation. A constitution, to be fully constitutional, had to be framed by a special convention elected for that purpose alone, and then ratified by some direct expression of the sovereignty of the people.

The same consideration applied to bills of rights.

Before 1776, Americans believed the rights they claimed or enjoyed had multiple sources. There were natural rights, English common law rights their ancestors had carried with them, rights created by the very acts of colonization, rights affirmed by colonial charters, and rights that could be established by a legislative act, as in Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated Statute of Religious Freedom for Virginia.

But by the late 1780s, the idea of affirming the supreme authority of a bill of rights by entrenching it in the text of a constitution presented a more attractive alternative. Instead of appealing in complicated ways to multiple sources, Americans would have one commanding text to invoke, enacted through a special process that would make it supreme law. And that text would operate as a legal command, as the opening phrase of the First Amendment reminds us: “Congress shall make no law.”

That was the understanding Madison acted on in 1789, when he persuaded the First Congress that it was indeed duty-bound to propose a bill of rights. But Madison’s thinking about the protection of rights had other radical dimensions.

Before 1776, Americans would have said that the real purpose of a bill of rights was to protect the people as a whole against the concentrated power of the monarchy. Madison instead came to believe that the real purpose was to protect minorities and individuals against the dominant powers of the majority. Before 1776, Americans would have said that the legislature and the jury were the best institutions for protecting rights. Madison instead concluded that the legislature was the most dangerous institution precisely because it derived its power from the support of popular majorities.

These were momentous developments, and unless we know this history, we will not understand the true significance of the Bill of Rights.

• Jack Rakove is the William Robertson Coe professor of history and American studies at Stanford University and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.” Readers may send him email at rakove@stanford.edu.

More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

People watch a broadcast of Former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, delivering a speech at Times Square in New York, on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024. (Graham Dickie/The New York Times)
Opinion: The Democratic Party’s failure of imagination

Aside from not being a lifelong Republican like Peter Wehner, the sentiment… Continue reading

A steady procession of vehicles and students arrives at Juneau-Douglas High School: Yadaa.at Kalé before the start of the new school year on Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Let’s consider tightening cell phones restrictions in Juneau schools

A recent uptick in student fights on and off campus has Juneau… Continue reading

A map shows state-by-state results of aggregate polls for U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump (red) and Kamala Harris (blue), with states too close to call in grey, as of Oct. 29. (Wikimedia Commons map)
Opinion: The silent Republican Party betrayal

On Monday night, Donald Trump reported that two Pennsylvania counties had received… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letters: Vote no on ballot measure 2 for the future of Alaska

The idea that ranked choice voting (RCV) is confusing is a red… Continue reading

(Laurie Craig / Juneau Empire file photo)
10 reasons to put country above party labels in election

Like many of you I grew up during an era when people… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Alaskans are smart, can see the advantages of RCV and open primaries

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization that neither endorses… Continue reading

Tongass National Forest. (U.S. Forest Service photo)
My Turn: Why I oppose privatization of the Tongass rainforest

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been trying to privatize the Tongass for years.… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Supporting ranked choice voting is the honest choice

Some folks are really up in arms about the increased freedom afforded… Continue reading

(Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire file photo)
My Turn: Election presents stark contrasts

This election, both at the state and federal level, presents a choice… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Praise for Begich overlooks his support of Trump

Tom Boutin’s My Turn column praised Nick Begich. However, he left out… Continue reading

Former Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho discusses ranked choice voting at a Greater Juneau Chamber of Commerce weekly luncheon on June 30, 2022. (Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire file photo)
My Turn: Vote no Ballot Measure 2 and protect open primaries and protect our democracy

The focus of last week’s Juneau World Affairs Forum was the rise… Continue reading