bill of rights essay intro

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Why was the Bill of Rights added?

How was the bill of rights added to the u.s. constitution, does the bill of rights apply to the states.

• Does the Second Amendment allow owning guns for self-defense?
• Which U.S. Supreme Court justices think the Second Amendment recognizes the individual’s right to bear arms in self-defense?

Bill of Rights

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U.S. History - The Bill of Rights
• Online Library of Liberty - 1791: US Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments) - with commentary
• UShistory.org - Historic Documents - Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
• Cornell University Law School - Legal Information Institute - Bill of Rights
• Khan Academy - The Bill of Rights
• Bill of Rights Institute - Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)
• The Free Speech Center - Bill of Rights
• Social Science LibreTexts - The Bill of Rights
• National Archives - Bill of Rights

What is the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution , adopted as a single unit in 1791. It spells out the rights of the people of the United States in relation to their government.

Three delegates to the Constitutional Convention , most prominently George Mason , did not sign the U.S. Constitution largely because it lacked a bill of rights. He was among those arguing against ratification of the document because of that omission, and several states ratified it only on the understanding that a bill of rights would be quickly added.

James Madison drew on the Magna Carta , the English Bill of Rights , and Virginia ’s Declaration of Rights , mainly written by George Mason , in drafting 19 amendments, which he submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. The House approved 17 of them and sent it to the U.S. Senate , which approved 12 of them on September 25. Ten were ratified by the states and became law on December 15, 1791.

How does the Bill of Rights protect individual rights?

The Bill of Rights says that the government cannot establish a particular religion and may not prohibit people or newspapers from expressing themselves. It also sets strict limits on the lengths that government may go to in enforcing laws . Finally, it protects unenumerated rights of the people.

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. (One of the amendments that the U.S. Senate rejected would have applied those rights to state laws as well.) However, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) did forbid states to abridge the rights of any citizen without due process, and, beginning in the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court gradually applied most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well.

Bill of Rights , in the United States , the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution , which were adopted as a single unit on December 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the colonial struggle against king and Parliament , and a gradually broadening concept of equality among the American people. Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights, drafted chiefly by George Mason , was a notable forerunner. Besides being axioms of government, the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have binding legal force. Acts of Congress in conflict with them may be voided by the U.S. Supreme Court when the question of the constitutionality of such acts arises in litigation ( see judicial review ).

The Constitution in its main body forbids suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion (Article I, section 9); prohibits state or federal bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (I, 9, 10); requires that all crimes against the United States be tried by jury in the state where committed (III, 2); limits the definition, trial, and punishment of treason (III, 3); prohibits titles of nobility (I, 9) and religious tests for officeholding (VI); guarantees a republican form of government in every state (IV, 4); and assures each citizen the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states (IV, 2).

Popular dissatisfaction with the limited guarantees of the main body of the Constitution expressed in the state conventions called to ratify it led to demands and promises that the first Congress of the United States satisfied by submitting to the states 12 amendments. Ten were ratified. (The second of the 12 amendments, which required any change to the rate of compensation for congressional members to take effect only after the subsequent election in the House of Representatives , was ratified as the Twenty-seventh Amendment in 1992.) Individual states being subject to their own bills of rights, these amendments were limited to restraining the federal government. The Senate refused to submit James Madison ’s amendment (approved by the House of Representatives) protecting religious liberty, freedom of the press, and trial by jury against violation by the states.

Under the First Amendment , Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging freedom of speech or press or the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. Hostility to standing armies found expression in the Second Amendment ’s guarantee of the people’s right to bear arms and in the Third Amendment ’s prohibition of the involuntary quartering of soldiers in private houses.

The Fourth Amendment secures the people against unreasonable searches and seizures and forbids the issuance of warrants except upon probable cause and directed to specific persons and places. The Fifth Amendment requires grand jury indictment in prosecutions for major crimes and prohibits double jeopardy for a single offense. It provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself and forbids the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and the taking of private property for public use ( eminent domain ) without just compensation . By the Sixth Amendment , an accused person is to have a speedy public trial by jury, to be informed of the nature of the accusation, to be confronted with prosecution witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel . The Seventh Amendment formally established the right to trial by jury in civil cases. Excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment are forbidden by the Eighth Amendment . The Ninth Amendment protects unenumerated residual rights of the people, and, by the Tenth , powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

After the American Civil War (1861–65), slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment , and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) declared that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens thereof. It forbids the states to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court used the due process clause to gradually incorporate, or apply against the states, most of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights, which formerly had been understood to apply only against the federal government. Thus, the due process clause finally made effective the major portion of Madison’s unaccepted 1789 proposal.

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Main Reading Room

Bill of Rights: Primary Documents in American History

Introduction.

• Digital Collections
• Related Online Resources
• External Websites
• Print Resources

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

Authors: Mark Hall, Reference Specialist, Researcher and Reference Services Division​

Created: July 22, 2019

Last Updated: August 19, 2019

On September 25, 1789, the First Federal Congress of the United States proposed to the state legislatures twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first two, concerning the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified.* Articles three through twelve—known as the Bill of Rights—were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, and became the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights contains guarantees of essential rights and liberties omitted in the crafting of the original Constitution.

Use the navigation menu on the left to access sections of this guide on digital collections, related online resources, external websites, and a bibliography of books providing more information on the Bill of Rights.

• Bill of Rights External From the World Digital Library.

Printed by Thomas Greenleaf. [ Twelve articles, the Bill of Rights as submitted to the states ]. 1789. Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division.

The Bill of Rights . [between ca. 1920 and ca. 1930]. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

A bill of rights as provided in the ten original amendments to the constitution of the United States in force December 15, 1791 . 1950. Printed Ephemera Collection. Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division.

*Note: The original second amendment proposed by the First Federal Congress dealt with the compensation of members of Congress. Although rejected at the time, it was eventually ratified on May 7, 1992, as the 27th Amendment.

• Next: Digital Collections >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:58 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/bill-of-rights

America's Founding Documents

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum . The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

Article the twelfth... 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.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

The U.S. Bill of Rights

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights , which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building , Washington, D.C.

Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, the declaration, the constitution, and the bill of rights.

by Jeffrey Rosen and David Rubenstein

At the National Constitution Center, you will find rare copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These are the three most important documents in American history. But why are they important, and what are their similarities and differences? And how did each document, in turn, influence the next in America’s ongoing quest for liberty and equality?

There are some clear similarities among the three documents. All have preambles. All were drafted by people of similar backgrounds, generally educated white men of property. The Declaration and Constitution were drafted by a congress and a convention that met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia (now known as Independence Hall) in 1776 and 1787 respectively. The Bill of Rights was proposed by the Congress that met in Federal Hall in New York City in 1789. Thomas Jefferson was the principal drafter of the Declaration and James Madison of the Bill of Rights; Madison, along with Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson, was also one of the principal architects of the Constitution.

Most importantly, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are based on the idea that all people have certain fundamental rights that governments are created to protect. Those rights include common law rights, which come from British sources like the Magna Carta, or natural rights, which, the Founders believed, came from God. The Founders believed that natural rights are inherent in all people by virtue of their being human and that certain of these rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be surrendered to government under any circumstances.

At the same time, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are different kinds of documents with different purposes. The Declaration was designed to justify breaking away from a government; the Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to establish a government. The Declaration stands on its own—it has never been amended—while the Constitution has been amended 27 times. (The first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights.) The Declaration and Bill of Rights set limitations on government; the Constitution was designed both to create an energetic government and also to constrain it. The Declaration and Bill of Rights reflect a fear of an overly centralized government imposing its will on the people of the states; the Constitution was designed to empower the central government to preserve the blessings of liberty for “We the People of the United States.” In this sense, the Declaration and Bill of Rights, on the one hand, and the Constitution, on the other, are mirror images of each other.

Despite these similarities and differences, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are, in many ways, fused together in the minds of Americans, because they represent what is best about America. They are symbols of the liberty that allows us to achieve success and of the equality that ensures that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The Declaration of Independence made certain promises about which liberties were fundamental and inherent, but those liberties didn’t become legally enforceable until they were enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words, the fundamental freedoms of the American people were alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, implicit in the Constitution, and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. But it took the Civil War, which President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address called “a new birth of freedom,” to vindicate the Declaration’s famous promise that “all men are created equal.” And it took the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, to vindicate James Madison’s initial hope that not only the federal government but also the states would be constitutionally required to respect fundamental liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights—a process that continues today.

Why did Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence?

When the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1775, it was far from clear that the delegates would pass a resolution to separate from Great Britain. To persuade them, someone needed to articulate why the Americans were breaking away. Congress formed a committee to do just that; members included John Adams from Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman from Connecticut, Robert R. Livingston from New York, and Thomas Jefferson from Virginia, who at age 33 was one of the youngest delegates.

Although Jefferson disputed his account, John Adams later recalled that he had persuaded Jefferson to write the draft because Jefferson had the fewest enemies in Congress and was the best writer. (Jefferson would have gotten the job anyway—he was elected chair of the committee.) Jefferson had 17 days to produce the document and reportedly wrote a draft in a day or two. In a rented room not far from the State House, he wrote the Declaration with few books and pamphlets beside him, except for a copy of George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights and the draft Virginia Constitution, which Jefferson had written himself.

The Declaration of Independence has three parts. It has a preamble, which later became the most famous part of the document but at the time was largely ignored. It has a second part that lists the sins of the King of Great Britain, and it has a third part that declares independence from Britain and that all political connections between the British Crown and the “Free and Independent States” of America should be totally dissolved.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence contains the entire theory of American government in a single, inspiring passage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When Jefferson wrote the preamble, it was largely an afterthought. Why is it so important today? It captured perfectly the essence of the ideals that would eventually define the United States. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” Jefferson began, in one of the most famous sentences in the English language. How could Jefferson write this at a time that he and other Founders who signed the Declaration owned slaves? The document was an expression of an ideal. In his personal conduct, Jefferson violated it. But the ideal—“that all men are created equal”—came to take on a life of its own and is now considered the most perfect embodiment of the American creed.

When Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address during the Civil War in November 1863, several months after the Union Army defeated Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg, he took Jefferson’s language and transformed it into constitutional poetry. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” Lincoln declared. “Four score and seven years ago” refers to the year 1776, making clear that Lincoln was referring not to the Constitution but to Jefferson’s Declaration. Lincoln believed that the “principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society,” as he wrote shortly before the anniversary of Jefferson’s birthday in 1859. Three years later, on the anniversary of George Washington’s birthday in 1861, Lincoln said in a speech at what by that time was being called “Independence Hall,” “I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender” the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

It took the Civil War, the bloodiest war in American history, for Lincoln to begin to make Jefferson’s vision of equality a constitutional reality. After the war, the Declaration’s vision was embodied in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which formally ended slavery, guaranteed all persons the “equal protection of the laws,” and gave African-American men the right to vote. At the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when supporters of gaining greater rights for women met, they, too, used the Declaration of Independence as a guide for drafting their Declaration of Sentiments. (Their efforts to achieve equal suffrage culminated in 1920 in the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote.) And during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his famous address at the Lincoln Memorial, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In addition to its promise of equality, Jefferson’s preamble is also a promise of liberty. Like the other Founders, he was steeped in the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, in philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, Francis Hutcheson, and Montesquieu. All of them believed that people have certain unalienable and inherent rights that come from God, not government, or come simply from being human. They also believed that when people form governments, they give those governments control over certain natural rights to ensure the safety and security of other rights. Jefferson, George Mason, and the other Founders frequently spoke of the same set of rights as being natural and unalienable. They included the right to worship God “according to the dictates of conscience,” the right of “enjoyment of life and liberty,” “the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety,” and, most important of all, the right of a majority of the people to “alter and abolish” their government whenever it threatened to invade natural rights rather than protect them.

In other words, when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and began to articulate some of the rights that were ultimately enumerated in the Bill of Rights, he wasn’t inventing these rights out of thin air. On the contrary, 10 American colonies between 1606 and 1701 were granted charters that included representative assemblies and promised the colonists the basic rights of Englishmen, including a version of the promise in the Magna Carta that no freeman could be imprisoned or destroyed “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” This legacy kindled the colonists’ hatred of arbitrary authority, which allowed the King to seize their bodies or property on his own say-so. In the revolutionary period, the galvanizing examples of government overreaching were the “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” that authorized the King’s agents to break into the homes of scores of innocent citizens in an indiscriminate search for the anonymous authors of pamphlets criticizing the King. Writs of assistance, for example, authorized customs officers “to break open doors, Chests, Trunks, and other Packages” in a search for stolen goods, without specifying either the goods to be seized or the houses to be searched. In a famous attack on the constitutionality of writs of assistance in 1761, prominent lawyer James Otis said, “It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.”

As members of the Continental Congress contemplated independence in May and June of 1776, many colonies were dissolving their charters with England. As the actual vote on independence approached, a few colonies were issuing their own declarations of independence and bills of rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, written by George Mason, began by declaring that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” 

When Jefferson wrote his famous preamble, he was restating, in more eloquent language, the philosophy of natural rights expressed in the Virginia Declaration that the Founders embraced. And when Jefferson said, in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, that “[w]hen in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,” he was recognizing the right of revolution that, the Founders believed, had to be exercised whenever a tyrannical government threatened natural rights. That’s what Jefferson meant when he said Americans had to assume “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document rather than a legal one. It didn’t give any rights to anyone. It was an advertisement about why the colonists were breaking away from England. Although there was no legal reason to sign the Declaration, Jefferson and the other Founders signed it because they wanted to “mutually pledge” to each other that they were bound to support it with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Their signatures were courageous because the signers realized they were committing treason: according to legend, after affixing his flamboyantly large signature John Hancock said that King George—or the British ministry—would be able to read his name without spectacles. But the courage of the signers shouldn’t be overstated: the names of the signers of the Declaration weren’t published until after General George Washington won crucial battles at Trenton and Princeton and it was clear that the war for independence was going well.

What is the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

In the years between 1776 and 1787, most of the 13 states drafted constitutions that contained a declaration of rights within the body of the document or as a separate provision at the beginning, many of them listing the same natural rights that Jefferson had embraced in the Declaration. When it came time to form a central government in 1776, the Continental Congress began to create a weak union governed by the Articles of Confederation. (The Articles of Confederation was sent to the states for ratification in 1777; it was formally adopted in 1781.) The goal was to avoid a powerful federal government with the ability to invade rights and to threaten private property, as the King’s agents had done with the hated general warrants and writs of assistance. But the Articles of Confederation proved too weak for bringing together a fledgling nation that needed both to wage war and to manage the economy. Supporters of a stronger central government, like James Madison, lamented the inability of the government under the Articles to curb the excesses of economic populism that were afflicting the states, such as Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, where farmers shut down the courts demanding debt relief. As a result, Madison and others gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 with the goal of creating a stronger, but still limited, federal government.

The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House, in the room where the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Jefferson, who was in France at the time, wasn’t among them. After four months of debate, the delegates produced a constitution.

During the final days of debate, delegates George Mason and Elbridge Gerry objected that the Constitution, too, should include a bill of rights to protect the fundamental liberties of the people against the newly empowered president and Congress. Their motion was swiftly—and unanimously—defeated; a debate over what rights to include could go on for weeks, and the delegates were tired and wanted to go home. The Constitution was approved by the Constitutional Convention and sent to the states for ratification without a bill of rights.

During the ratification process, which took around 10 months (the Constitution took effect when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify in late June 1788; the 13th state, Rhode Island, would not join the union until May 1790), many state ratifying conventions proposed amendments specifying the rights that Jefferson had recognized in the Declaration and that they protected in their own state constitutions. James Madison and other supporters of the Constitution initially resisted the need for a bill of rights as either unnecessary (because the federal government was granted no power to abridge individual liberty) or dangerous (since it implied that the federal government had the power to infringe liberty in the first place). In the face of a groundswell of popular demand for a bill of rights, Madison changed his mind and introduced a bill of rights in Congress on June 8, 1789.

Madison was least concerned by “abuse in the executive department,” which he predicted would be the weakest branch of government. He was more worried about abuse by Congress, because he viewed the legislative branch as “the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control.” (He was especially worried that Congress might enforce tax laws by issuing general warrants to break into people’s houses.) But in his view “the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body”—in other words, local majorities who would take over state governments and threaten the fundamental rights of minorities, including creditors and property holders. For this reason, the proposed amendment that Madison considered “the most valuable amendment in the whole list” would have prohibited the state governments from abridging freedom of conscience, speech, and the press, as well as trial by jury in criminal cases. Madison’s favorite amendment was eliminated by the Senate and not resurrected until after the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment required state governments to respect basic civil and economic liberties.

In the end, by pulling from the amendments proposed by state ratifying conventions and Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, Madison proposed 19 amendments to the Constitution. Congress approved 12 amendments to be sent to the states for ratification. Only 10 of the amendments were ultimately ratified in 1791 and became the Bill of Rights. The first of the two amendments that failed was intended to guarantee small congressional districts to ensure that representatives remained close to the people. The other would have prohibited senators and representatives from giving themselves a pay raise unless it went into effect at the start of the next Congress. (This latter amendment was finally ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment.)

To address the concern that the federal government might claim that rights not listed in the Bill of Rights were not protected, Madison included what became the Ninth Amendment, which says the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” To ensure that Congress would be viewed as a government of limited rather than unlimited powers, he included the 10th Amendment, which says 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.” Because of the first Congress’s focus on protecting people from the kinds of threats to liberty they had experienced at the hands of King George, the rights listed in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government, not to the states or to private companies. (One of the amendments submitted by the North Carolina ratifying convention but not included by Madison in his proposal to Congress would have prohibited Congress from establishing monopolies or companies with “exclusive advantages of commerce.”)

But the protections in the Bill of Rights—forbidding Congress from abridging free speech, for example, or conducting unreasonable searches and seizures—were largely ignored by the courts for the first 100 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Like the preamble to the Declaration, the Bill of Rights was largely a promissory note. It wasn’t until the 20th century, when the Supreme Court began vigorously to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, that the document became the centerpiece of contemporary struggles over liberty and equality. The Bill of Rights became a document that defends not only majorities of the people against an overreaching federal government but also minorities against overreaching state governments. Today, there are debates over whether the federal government has become too powerful in threatening fundamental liberties. There are also debates about how to protect the least powerful in society against the tyranny of local majorities.

What do we know about the documentary history of the rare copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on display at the National Constitution Center?

Generally, when people think about the original Declaration, they are referring to the official engrossed —or final—copy now in the National Archives. That is the one that John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the other members of the Second Continental Congress signed, state by state, on August 2, 1776. John Dunlap, a Philadelphia printer, published the official printing of the Declaration ordered by Congress, known as the Dunlap Broadside, on the night of July 4th and the morning of July 5th. About 200 copies are believed to have been printed. At least 27 are known to survive.

The document on display at the National Constitution Center is known as a Stone Engraving, after the engraver William J. Stone, whom then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams commissioned in 1820 to create a precise facsimile of the original engrossed version of the Declaration. That manuscript had become faded and worn after nearly 45 years of travel with Congress between Philadelphia, New York City, and eventually Washington, D.C., among other places, including Leesburg, Virginia, where it was rolled up and hidden during the British invasion of the capital in 1814.

To ensure that future generations would have a clear image of the original Declaration, William Stone made copies of the document before it faded away entirely. Historians dispute how Stone rendered the facsimiles. He kept the original Declaration in his shop for up to three years and may have used a process that involved taking a wet cloth, putting it on the original document, and creating a perfect copy by taking off half the ink. He would have then put the ink on a copper plate to do the etching (though he might have, instead, traced the entire document by hand without making a press copy). Stone used the copper plate to print 200 first edition engravings as well as one copy for himself in 1823, selling the plate and the engravings to the State Department. John Quincy Adams sent copies to each of the living signers of the Declaration (there were three at the time), public officials like President James Monroe, Congress, other executive departments, governors and state legislatures, and official repositories such as universities. The Stone engravings give us the clearest idea of what the original engrossed Declaration looked like on the day it was signed.

The Constitution, too, has an original engrossed, handwritten version as well as a printing of the final document. John Dunlap, who also served as the official printer of the Declaration, and his partner David C. Claypoole, who worked with him to publish the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser , America’s first successful daily newspaper founded by Dunlap in 1771, secretly printed copies of the convention’s committee reports for the delegates to review, debate, and make changes. At the end of the day on September 15, 1787, after all of the delegations present had approved the Constitution, the convention ordered it engrossed on parchment. Jacob Shallus, assistant clerk to the Pennsylvania legislature, spent the rest of the weekend preparing the engrossed copy (now in the National Archives), while Dunlap and Claypoole were ordered to print 500 copies of the final text for distribution to the delegates, Congress, and the states. The engrossed copy was signed on Monday, September 17th, which is now celebrated as Constitution Day.

The copy of the Constitution on display at the National Constitution Center was published in Dunlap and Claypoole’s Pennsylvania Packet newspaper on September 19, 1787. Because it was the first public printing of the document—the first time Americans saw the Constitution—scholars consider its constitutional significance to be especially profound. The publication of the Constitution in the Pennsylvania Packet was the first opportunity for “We the People of the United States” to read the Constitution that had been drafted and would later be ratified in their name.

The handwritten Constitution inspires awe, but the first public printing reminds us that it was only the ratification of the document by “We the People” that made the Constitution the supreme law of the land. As James Madison emphasized in The Federalist No. 40 in 1788, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had “proposed a Constitution which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed.” Only 25 copies of the Pennsylvania Packet Constitution are known to have survived.

Finally, there is the Bill of Rights. On October 2, 1789, Congress sent 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution to the states for ratification—including the 10 that would come to be known as the Bill of Rights. There were 14 original manuscript copies, including the one displayed at the National Constitution Center—one for the federal government and one for each of the 13 states.

Twelve of the 14 copies are known to have survived. Two copies —those of the federal government and Delaware — are in the National Archives. Eight states currently have their original documents; Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania do not. There are two existing unidentified copies, one held by the Library of Congress and one held by The New York Public Library. The copy on display at the National Constitution Center is from the collections of The New York Public Library and will be on display for several years through an agreement between the Library and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the display coincides with the 225th anniversary of the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the three most important documents in American history because they express the ideals that define “We the People of the United States” and inspire free people around the world.

Read More About the Constitution

The constitutional convention of 1787: a revolution in government, on originalism in constitutional interpretation, democratic constitutionalism, modal title.

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Meet the 2024 History Teachers of the Year!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Our Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Grades 10–12)

By tim bailey, view the constitution in the gilder lehrman collection by clicking here and here . for a resource on the variations between a draft and the final version of the united states constitution click here . for additional resources click here ..

Unit Objective

These lessons on the Bill of Rights are part of Gilder Lehrman’s series of Common Core–based units. These units were written to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Students will demonstrate this knowledge by writing summaries of selections from the original document and, by the end of the unit, articulating their understanding of the complete document by answering questions in an argumentative writing style to fulfill the Common Core Standards. Through this step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material.

Students will understand the rights and restrictions that are defined by the first five amendments of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. They will demonstrate that understanding by restating those ideals in their own words.

Introduction

On September 17, 1787, in the city of Philadelphia, 39 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the newly negotiated United States Constitution. Many of those who did not sign refused to do so because the document did not include a “bill of rights” that would both secure basic civil rights for its citizens and define the limits of the federal government’s power. Much of the later state ratification debates raged over this lack of a bill of rights. In the solution known as the Massachusetts Compromise, four states agreed to ratify the document if their recommendations would be sent to Congress for consideration. Subsequently, Congress approved twelve of those amendments to the Constitution in 1789. Ten of these were ratified by the states and became the Bill of Rights. The responsibility for the interpretation of those amendments is the given to the Supreme Court.

In this unit the students will analyze the original text of these amendments through careful reading. They will study the exact language of the amendments in order to understand not only the intent of the Founding Fathers, but also the way these words have since been interpreted. This will be done as both individual and group work, and will be evaluated by applying their understanding in short essays.

• The Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10  (PDF)
• The Bill of Rights, Full Text  (PDF)
• Graphic Organizer (Amendments 1-5)  (PDF)

Note: Depending on the makeup of your class, you may choose to have the students do the first two lessons individually, as partners, or in small groups of three or four students.

• Discuss the information in the introduction.
• Hand out the graphic organizer “Analyzing the First Five Amendments.”
• The teacher then “share reads” the first five amendments with the students. This is done by having the students follow along silently while the teacher begins reading aloud. The teacher models prosody, inflection, and punctuation. The teacher then asks the class to join in with the reading after a few sentences while the teacher continues to read along with the students, still serving as the model for the class. This technique will support struggling readers as well as English Language Learners (ELL).
• The task for the students is to be able to put the first five amendments into their own words. The teacher will model how this is done by putting the graphic organizer on an overhead or Elmo projector so that all students can see the form. Then, as a whole group, go through the process of writing a paraphrasing of the First Amendment. In order to accomplish this the students are going to do a careful reading as they analyze the text and then restate the various parts of the amendment so it makes sense to them. For instance, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” could be restated by the students as “The government can’t start religions or stop people from practicing their own.” The students should follow the teacher through the process and write the new paraphrasing in the box next to the original text.
• The teacher now asks the students to continue with the rest of the amendments on the sheet. As they complete the amendments you can share out some of the best results so the students know if they are on the right track and to acknowledge them for their critical-thinking skills.
• Depending on the class, you may choose to move forward with Lesson 2, or it can be very effective to partner this lesson with short video clips that show the impact of the first five amendments. The following Gilder Lehrman videos may be helpful:
• Madison’s Influence on the US Constitution, Jack Rakove
• Teaching the Constitution, Larry Kramer
• Defining the Constitution, Larry Kramer

Students will understand the rights and restrictions that are defined by the second five amendments of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. They will demonstrate that understanding by restating those ideals in their own words.

In this lesson the students will analyze the original text of amendments 6–10 just as they did amendments 1–5 in the last lesson, through careful reading. They will study the exact language of the amendments in order to understand not only the intent of the Founding Fathers, but also the way that these words have been since been interpreted. At the teacher’s discretion this will be done either individually, as partners, or in small groups of three to four students.

• Graphic Organizer (Amendments 6-10)  (PDF)
• Review both the information in the introduction from the last lesson as well as the procedures from that lesson.
• Pass out the graphic organizer titled “Analyzing Amendments 6–10.”
• The teacher then “share reads” these amendments with the students. This is done by having the students follow along silently while the teacher begins reading aloud. The teacher models prosody, inflection, and punctuation. The teacher then asks the class to join in with the reading after a few sentences while the teacher continues to read along with the students, still serving as the model for the class. This technique will support struggling readers as well as English Language Learners (ELL).
• The task for the students is to be able to put these next five amendments into their own words. If the teacher thinks the students need to review the process, then model how this is done by putting the graphic organizer on an overhead or Elmo so that all students can see the form. Then, as a whole group, write a paraphrasing of the first part of the Sixth Amendment. In order to accomplish this the students are going to do a careful reading as they analyze the text and then restate the various parts of the amendment so that that it makes sense to them.
• The teacher now asks the students to continue with the rest of the amendments for today’s lesson. As students complete the amendments you can share out some of the best results so that the students know if they are on the right track and to acknowledge them for their critical-thinking skills.
• Depending on the class, you may choose to move forward with Lesson 3, or it can be very effective to partner this lesson with short video clips that show the impact of the next five amendments in the Bill of Rights. The following Gilder Lehrman videos may be helpful:
• Brown v. Board of Education and Its Effect on Civil Rights, Larry Kramer
• Arguing Cases in the Supreme Court, Jeff Fisher
• What are the legacies of the Civil Rights Movement, Jacquelyn Dowd Hall

Students will understand how decisions made by the Supreme Court are based on what is written in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. They will become aware of how these decisions, based on the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, have a great influence on American society.

In this lesson the students will be working with a partner or in small groups in order to read, analyze, discuss, and write about a Supreme Court case from 1968 called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District . They will be drawing their own conclusions as to the Constitutional issues based on their study of the Bill of Rights, and then offering support for either the Supreme Court’s majority or minority opinion in the case.

• Graphic Organizer: Supreme Court Case 1: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District  (PDF)
• Supreme Court Case Handout A  (PDF)
• Supreme Court Case Handout B  (PDF)
• Supreme Court Case Handout C  (PDF)
• Give the students a brief overview of the introduction, covering the workings of the Supreme Court.
• Put the students into either partnerships or small groups of three to four students.
• Hand out the graphic organizer “Supreme Court Case #1 Handout A.”
• At the teacher’s discretion the text can be share read with the students as in the previous two lessons or the students can read it individually.
• The teacher then poses the question: “Were the petitioner’s Constitutional rights violated by the school district?”
• Hand out the graphic organizer “Supreme Court Case #1: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District .” The students will write their answer in the top section of the organizer.
• Let the students discuss their various views on the constitutional issues raised by this case.
• Hand out graphic organizers “Supreme Court Case #1 Handouts B and C.”
• The students will read both the majority and minority opinions in this case. The students should discuss these opinions with their partner or group.
• Using the graphic organizer the students will answer the following question: After reading both the majority and minority opinions, which do you agree with? Write a short analytical essay that addresses your own view of these two opinions. In the essay make certain to include at least three pieces of evidence directly from the text that support your choice and at least three examples taken from the text that undermine the other argument.
• You may choose to have students work together on this, or, if you are looking for a more individualized assessment, they can work by themselves.

In this lesson the students will be working with a partner or in small groups in order to read, analyze, discuss, and write about a Supreme Court case from 1987 called Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier . They will be drawing their own conclusions as to the constitutional issues based on their study of the Bill of Rights, and then comparing those issues to the ones raised in the last lesson’s case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District .

• Graphic Organizer: Supreme Court Case 2: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier  (PDF)
• Supreme Court Case Handout D  (PDF)
• Supreme Court Case Handout E  (PDF)
• Give the students a brief overview of the introduction.
• Put the students into the same partnership or small group as they were in the last lesson.
• Hand out the graphic organizer “Supreme Court Case #2 Handout D.”
• At the teacher’s discretion the text can be share read with the students as in the first two lessons or the students can read it individually.
• The teacher then poses the question: “Did the school’s principal violate the student’s Constitutional rights?”
• Hand out the graphic organizer “Supreme Court Case #2: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier .” On this organizer they will use the top section to answer that question.
• Let the students discuss their various views on the Constitutional issues raised by this case.
• Hand out graphic organizer “Supreme Court Case #2 Handout E.”
• The students will read the decision in this case. The students should discuss this decision with their partner or group.
• Using the graphic organizer the students will do the following: Write a short analytical essay that compares this case with the Tinker v. Des Moines case. In what ways are they the same and in what ways are they different? How did these similarities and differences affect the Supreme Court’s decision? In the essay make certain to include textual evidence taken directly from the documents that support your argument.
• You may choose to have students work together on this or, if you are looking for a more individualized assessment, they can work by themselves.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Background Essay: The Creation of the Bill of Rights

Guiding Questions: How does the Bill of Rights protect individual liberties and limit the power of government? How is this seen in our everyday lives?

• I can identify the arguments for and against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.
• I can explain James Madison’s role in the development and passage of the Bill of Rights.

The history of the Bill of Rights stretches back centuries before the American Founding. Many previous declarations of rights influenced the Bill of Rights. The purpose of these documents was fundamentally twofold: to protect the rights of individuals and to limit government power.

Essential Vocabulary

English Tradition

Three particularly influential declarations from England were the Magna Carta (1215), the English Petition of Right (1628), and the English Bill of Rights (1689). Each of these defined basic rights such as trial by jury, no taxation without consent, free elections, due process of law, and no cruel and unusual punishment. By doing so, the documents limited the power of the government, which was a monarchy.

The American colonists were highly influenced by the English tradition and created declarations of rights. Americans declared their rights against British oppression during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and 1770s. For example, the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 issued a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, the First Continental Congress of 1774 also proclaimed a Declaration of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence was the foundational statement on natural rights. Over the next decade, most of the states created their own bills of rights protecting individual rights and limiting government.

A Bill of Rights Is Proposed

On September 12, 1787, during the last days of the Constitutional Convention, Virginia delegate George Mason, lead author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, rose and proposed a bill of rights, a list of rights belonging to the people that government could not violate. The delegates were wrapping up their business and worried that a long debate on a bill of rights could endanger agreement on the final document. The convention unanimously rejected Mason’s idea.

When the Constitution was sent to popular state conventions for ratification, or approval, the Anti-Federalists , who opposed the new Constitution, argued for a bill of rights to protect the liberties of the people. Several Federalists , who supported the new constitution, disagreed about the need for a bill of rights. On October 6, Pennsylvanian James Wilson stated that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the new national government was already limited in its powers by the new Constitution and had no authority to violate liberties in the first place. Therefore, a bill of rights was not necessary with a limited government controlled by the people. In Federalist No. 84 , Alexander Hamilton warned that defining certain rights would mean some were left out and endangered. He also was concerned that some rights would be vaguely written and misinterpreted. Most importantly, Hamilton argued that “the constitution is itself . . . A BILL OF RIGHTS” because of the principle of limited government. In various Federalist Papers, Madison had cautioned against the notion that rights are protected best by mere “parchment barriers,” or words written down on paper, which could be violated. Instead, Madison insisted that a properly formed constitutional government with a separation of powers offered the best protection of rights.

Madison Supports the Bill of Rights

As the debates continued, it became clear that a compromise on a bill of rights was needed to win the support of the Anti-Federalists. As a result, the Federalists promised to pass a bill of rights after the Constitution had been ratified. One Federalist, who was concerned about these additions to the Constitution, was Virginian James Madison, who called them a blemish [flaw].

Madison exchanged several letters with his friend Thomas Jefferson, who was a diplomat in Paris at the time. Jefferson thought the Constitution should contain a bill of rights because “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Madison explained that such declarations were often just “parchment barriers” that would not stop a government bent on violating them. However, he began to change his mind.

After being elected to the House of Representatives, Madison ironically became the champion for a bill of rights in the First Congress, but most other members were opposed. They thought the Congress had more important work to do setting up the new government. Madison persisted and dedicated himself to the cause of protecting the people’s liberties.

On June 8, 1789, Madison delivered a speech in favor of a bill of rights. He wanted to achieve a united political order with harmony and justice. A bill of rights would promote the civic virtues of friendship and moderation , or self-control, because the Anti-Federalists would support the new government. In addition, he thought that the Federalists had made a sacred promise to pass a bill of rights during the ratification debate. He also wanted to win over Rhode Island and North Carolina, which were refusing to ratify the Constitution until a bill of rights was added. Most importantly, a bill of rights would “expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution.”

Madison then skillfully guided the amendments through the Congress. He sat down to make a list of 19 amendments that protected essential liberties. He wanted them to be woven into the text of the Constitution, not just placed at the end of the document. He also wanted the Bill of Rights to limit state governments and protect liberties in states.

The Bill of Rights Is Ratified

On August 24, the House approved 17 amendments by the required two-thirds vote and sent them to the Senate for consideration. By September 14, two-thirds of the Senate approved 12 of those amendments. President Washington sent the amendments to the states, endorsing them even though the president does not have a formal role in creating amendments.

Over the next two years, 11 states, including North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified 10 of these 12 amendments, meeting the constitutionally required three-fourths majority and establishing the Bill of Rights. Virginia became the last state to ratify on December 15, 1791. The Bill of Rights fulfilled Madison’s goals of reconciling opponents of the Constitution and protecting individual liberties. However, he did not achieve two of his goals. The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the states. And the Bill of Rights was a separate list of amendments, not woven into the text of the Constitution. Regardless, the amendments were successful in limiting government action and protecting the people’s rights.

The Bill of Rights became recognized as one of the most important guarantees of rights and liberties. Americans have increasingly appealed to the Bill of Rights as the source of their rights. This fulfills one of the Anti-Federalists’ desires regarding of a bill of rights: that it would help educate the people about their rights. However, people should remember that the Bill of Rights is not the only protection for their rights. The Declaration of Independence is an assertion of the natural rights of every individual, which come from a higher source than government. Moreover, the Constitution itself limits government through several principles, such as federalism and the separation of powers. These principles also serve to protect individual rights.

Related Content

Essay Questions: The Creation of the Bill of Rights

Breaking Down the Bill of Rights Graphic Organizer

The Creation of the Bill of Rights

How does the Bill of Rights protect individual liberties and limit the power of government? How is this seen in our everyday lives?

Answer Key: The Creation of the Bill of Rights

Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Why is the Bill of Rights important today? What would happen without it? The essay on the importance of Bill of Rights essay below will answer all of your questions about the issue!

Introduction

Arguments against the bill of rights, arguments in favor of the bill of rights, works cited.

Various countries have adopted different systems of government that are suitable for them. A legitimate government is one that has the legal power to rule the nation. A government becomes popular if it is supported by most of the citizens. The constitution is one of the major documents that provide the frame work within which the government operates. This fundamental document defines the relationship between the citizens and the government. It also defines the powers that the government has and how it should exercise them.

The constitution is normally broken down it various categories each having a set of provisions. The bill of rights is one of the basic provisions of a given constitution and it spells out the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of a given nation.

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the constitution has been a controversial issue and some people contend that it is not necessary in a situation where we have a legitimate government that has a popular support. In my view, the bill of rights is very necessary in any type of government because of the following reasons.

In the case of United States, the inclusion of the bill of rights was controversial and people who opposed it had the following arguments. First, they felt that they could elect various individuals to represent them in parliament and if they failed to be accountable to the citizens, they could be stripped off their leadership positions.

Secondly, “the Bill of Rights was used by anti federalists, as a rallying point to argue in favor of the pre-constitutional status quo a confederation of independent states, operating under the glorified treaty that was the Articles of Confederation” (Amar 123). They also thought that the process of drafting it could take a long time and it could interfere with the promulgation of the proposed law.

Thirdly, they contended that the bill of rights would give the impression that the federal government had unlimited powers. Fourthly, the bill rights could not be practical and it could simply be treated as a mission statement. They also thought that there were no mechanisms that could be used to force the legislature to stick on it.

“It is on this basis that they dismissed it as volumes of aphorisms which would sound better in treaties of ethics than in a constitution of government” (Levy 68). This argument remained popular until 1789 when Thomas Jefferson fought for the drafting of the bill. It was later adopted and recognized by the Supreme Court in 1803.

The Bill Rights is an important aspect of the constitution and I therefore contend that it should be part of the constitution of any legitimate and popular government. I support it because of the following reasons. It enables the citizens to fully benefit from the government.

This is because it ensures that the government protects the welfare and rights of its citizens. The U.S. constitution has ten amendments and they are what we call the Bill of Rights. These rights also enable the citizens to have a fair trial in the courts hence, they cannot be tried unfairly. In addition to these, suspects can be freed on bail as they wait for their cases to be tried.

The lives of citizens is also protected by the bill, hence, the life of an individual cannot be taken by any body unless there are proper justifications for it. “The bill of rights also guarantees the citizens the freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of lawful assembly, and of appeal by petition” (Levy 187).

This right can only be restricted in a case where it interferes with the rights of others. Citizens are also accorded the right be in possession of arms provided they do not misuse them. It also prevents unnecessary military occupation unless it is allowed by the law.

The United Nations also came up with Universal Human Rights. These Rights were formulated in order to preserve the dignity of human beings from any violation. It therefore enhances equality among people and this encourages peace in the world. Many conflicts that occur today in various countries are mainly because the rights of the citizens are not honored.

For example, the wave of revolution that has really spread a cross the Arab world is mainly because the governments in those countries do respect the citizens’ rights. “Many believe that the protection of human rights is essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace, development and democracy” (Labunski 157). This protection can only be possible if there are legal provisions for it.

Apart from the bill of rights, the citizens’ rights can also be safeguarded through the following methods. The government through the judiciary ensures that citizens’ rights are protected by punishing those who violate them. Secondly, it also uses its security departments to ensure that all citizens are law abiding and do not infringe on the rights of other people. The French Revolution opened a new chapter in the life of French citizens.

During the conflict various scholars like Montesquieu, and Rousseau advocated for the three ideals to be honored by the government. These ideals were equality, liberty, and fraternity. By advocating for these ideals they were demanding for the protection of their rights which had been seriously abused by the despotic regime.

Bill of Rights Essay Conclusion

From the above discussion, we can therefore conclude that the Bill of Rights is very important even if the government is legitimate. The legitimacy of the government is not enough to make it committed in doing the right things that the citizens expect of it. For example, many governments often start ruling with a lot of popularity but they often lose bearing at some level. It is only the bill of rights that can keep the government’s activities in check. Therefore, the Bill of Rights should be part of the constitution.

Amar, Akhil. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New York: Yale University Press, 2000.

Labunski, Richard. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Levy, Leonard. Origins of the Bill of Rights. New York: Yale University Press, 2001.

• The Healthcare Reform Debate and the Affordable Health Care for Americans
• Summer Food Bid Rigging
• Drafting an Agreement Between Three Parties
• American History: the Confederation
• Santa Cruz and Peru-Bolivia Confederation
• US History of US health care
• Concept and Role of the Government Agencies
• Democracy and Its Types
• Modern American Federalism
• Major Political Parties in the US
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 7). Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-constitution/

"Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay." IvyPanda , 7 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-constitution/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay'. 7 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay." June 7, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-constitution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay." June 7, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-constitution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Why Is the Bill of Rights Important Today Essay." June 7, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-constitution/.

site categories

Ec comics have risen from the dead in new series, studios throw support behind sag-aftra-backed, bipartisan bill regulating ai digital replicas upon senate introduction.

By Katie Campione

Katie Campione

TV Reporter

More Stories By Katherine

• Teamsters, Hollywood Basic Crafts Ratify New 3-Year Contracts With AMPTP
• SAG-AFTRA Hits Picket Line At Warner Bros. Demanding “Baseline Of Respect” From Major Video Game Companies
• Nielsen Records New Streaming Highs As All Top-10 Titles Surpass 1B Minutes Viewed, Led By ‘Beverly Hills Cop,’ ‘Suits’ & ‘House Of The Dragon’

As SAG-AFTRA been pushing for protections against AI, the studios have been reluctant to support any legislation that might crack down on its uses too broadly. But now, it appears that the parties are on the same page as they’ve both thrown their support behind a newly introduced bipartisan Senate bill.

The NO FAKES Act (read it  here ) finally received support from the studios via the Motion Picture Association on Wednesday, after the group had warned of potential First Amendment violations earlier this year.

Related Stories

Julia Louis-Dreyfus Will Be "Extra-Involved" In Kamala Harris Campaign, Including DNC Appearance

Sharon Stone & Carl Lewis Get Behind Kamala Harris: "This Is A Qualified Person... Not A Game Show Host Who Looks Like A 1975 Vegas Act"

“We support protecting performers from generative AI abuse – and this bill thoughtfully establishes federal protections against harmful uses of digital replicas, while respecting First Amendment rights and creative freedoms,” a statement from MPA CEO Charles Rivkin read. “We particularly appreciate the sponsors’ inclusion of safeguards intended to prevent the chilling of constitutionally protected speech such as biopics, docudramas, parody and satire – which will be necessary for any new law to be durable. The MPA looks forward to working closely with the bill’s sponsors as the NO FAKES Act makes its way into law.”

In addition to requiring informed consent for digital replicas, the NO FAKES Act — or the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act — offers historic federal IP protections against the misappropriation of voice and likeness performance in sound recordings and audiovisual works.

The MPA’s support is particularly noteworthy, because just a few months ago the group was warning of potential negative implications of what they considered to be sweeping language in the bill that could violate the First Amendment.

In a Senate hearing in May, senior VP  Ben Sheffner illustrated his point by making an example of Forrest Gump , which used that era’s digital technology to feature the lead character interacting with John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Updated language in the bill now spells out exclusions for recognized First Amendment protections, such as documentaries and biographical works, or for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody, among others. 

SAG-AFTRA and other artist groups have been supporting this bill for months. The actors union’s National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property in April, urging lawmakers to move forward with the legislation.

Artificial intelligence was a cornerstone of SAG-AFTRA’s  negotiations  with the Hollywood studios last year and one of the sticking points that prompted the actors union to go on strike for 148 days. As a result, SAG-AFTRA (along with the WGA and the DGA) secured provisions to protect their members from the use of AI.

SAG-AFTRA also negotiated AI protections in its contract with the recording industry, and it is seeking similar provisions in its Interactive Media Agreement with the video game companies, though those talks have been stalled after more than 18 months of negotiations. Last week, the union finally called a strike against the 10 major video game companies involved.

“Without a federal property right over our voices and likenesses, we cannot control what others make us do or say by using A.I. generated digital replicas of us without our consent. For an artist, voice and likeness are the foundation of their  performance, brand, and identity,” Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement Wednesday. “Taking that voice and likeness is theft and there must be recourse. Thank you Sen. Blackburn, Coons, Klobuchar and Tillis for spearheading the mission to protect everyone from unauthorized A.I. replicas.”

The introduction of the NO FAKES Act comes as artists and performers are, in some cases, taking matters into their own hands when it comes to protections against artificial intelligence to varying degrees of success.

Also on Wednesday, a federal judge narrowed the scope of a lawsuit from several top authors including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates against OpenAI over the use of their novels to train chatbots.

While the judge retained their primary claim of copyright infringement, she dismissed a claim of unfair business practices for utilizing the works without consent or compensation. In February, the scope was similarly trimmed, after the authors brought separate class actions against the company that were ultimately grouped together.

Following the bill’s introduction to the Senate, it also received statements of support from the Recording Academy, the Recording Industry Association of America, OpenAI, IBM, the Walt Disney Company, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Independent Film & Television Alliance, WME, CAA, UTA and more.

Must Read Stories

$94m u.s. weekend & $824m global; disney hits $3b for year.

Judge Rips Prosecutors Over “Fundamental Unfairness” & “Misconduct”

Vatican on “last supper” flap; simone biles, snoop dogg, taylor swift, adele, ‘veep’s julia louis-dreyfus “extra involved” in harris campaign; dnc in play, read more about:, subscribe to deadline.

Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.

No Comments

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Intro.3.2 Bill of Rights (First Through Tenth Amendments)

On September 12, five days before the Convention adjourned, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry raised the question of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. Mason said: It would give great quiet to the people; and with the aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours. But the motion of Gerry and Mason to appoint a committee for the purpose of drafting a bill of rights was rejected. 1 Footnote 8 5"> 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 17 8 7 , at 5 8 7– 8 8 (Max Farrand ed., 1937) . Again, on September 14, Charles Pinckney and Gerry sought to add a provision that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed&# 8 212;. But after Roger Sherman observed that such a declaration was unnecessary, because [t]he power of Congress does not extend to the Press, this suggestion too was rejected. 2 Footnote 8 6"> Id. at 617–1 8 . It cannot be known accurately why the Convention opposed these suggestions. Perhaps the lateness of the Convention, perhaps the desire not to present more opportunity for controversy when the document was forwarded to the states, perhaps the belief, asserted by the defenders of the Constitution when the absence of a bill of rights became critical, that no bill was needed because Congress was delegated none of the powers which such a declaration would deny, perhaps all these contributed to the rejection. 3 Footnote 8 7"> The argument most used by proponents of the Constitution was that inasmuch as Congress was delegated no power to do those things which a bill of rights would proscribe no bill of rights was necessary and that it might be dangerous because it would contain exceptions to powers not granted and might therefore afford a basis for claiming more than was granted. The Federalist No. 8 4 (Alexander Hamilton) .

In any event, the opponents of ratification soon made the absence of a bill of rights a major argument, 4 Footnote 8 8 "> Substantial excerpts from the debate in the country and in the ratifying conventions are set out in 1 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 435–620 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) ; 2 id. at 627–9 8 0 . The earlier portions of volume 1 trace the origins of the various guarantees back to the Magna Carta. and some friends of the document, such as Thomas Jefferson, 5 Footnote 8 9"> In a letter to Madison, Jefferson indicated what he did not like about the proposed Constitution. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of the fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations. . . . Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. 12 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 43 8 , 440 (J. Boyd ed., 195 8 ) . He suggested that nine States should ratify and four withhold ratification until amendments adding a bill of rights were adopted. Id. at 557, 570, 5 8 3 . Jefferson still later endorsed the plan put forward by Massachusetts to ratify and propose amendments. 14 id. at 649 . strongly urged amendment to include a declaration of rights. 6 Footnote Thus, George Washington observed in letters that a ratified Constitution could be amended but that making such amendments conditions for ratification was ill-advised. 11 The Writings of George Washington 249 (W. Ford ed., 1 8 91) . Several state conventions ratified while urging that the new Congress to be convened propose such amendments, 124 amendments in all being put forward by these states. 7 Footnote 2 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 627–9 8 0 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) . See also H. Ames , The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution 19 (1 8 96) . Although some dispute has occurred with regard to the obligation of the first Congress to propose amendments, James Madison at least had no doubts 8 " href="#ALDF_00014392"> 8 Footnote Madison began as a doubter, writing Jefferson that while [m]y own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights, still I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment. . . . 5 The Writings of James Madison 269 (G. Hunt ed., 1904) . His reasons were four. (1) The Federal Government was not granted the powers to do what a bill of rights would proscribe. (2) There was reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. (3) A greater security was afforded by the jealousy of the States of the national government. (4) [E]xperience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. . . . Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. . . . Wherever there is a interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. Id. at 272–73. Jefferson’s response acknowledged the potency of Madison’s reservations and attempted to answer them, in the course of which he called Madison’s attention to an argument in favor not considered by Madison which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, and kept strictly to their own department merits great confidence for their learning and integrity. 14 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 659 (J. Boyd ed., 195 8 ) . Madison was to assert this point when he introduced his proposals for a bill of rights in the House of Representatives. 1 Annals of Cong. 439 (June 8 , 17 8 9) .In any event, following ratification, Madison in his successful campaign for a seat in the House firmly endorsed the proposal of a bill of rights. [I]t is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it ought to prepare and recommend to the States for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of Conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trials by jury, security against general warrants & c. 5 The Writings of James Madison 319 (G. Hunt ed., 1904) . and introduced a series of proposals, 9 Footnote 1 Annals of Cong. 424–50 (June 8 , 17 8 9) . The proposals as introduced are at pp. 433–36. The Members of the House were indisposed to moving on the proposals. which he had difficulty claiming the interest of the rest of Congress in considering. At length, the House of Representatives adopted seventeen proposals; the Senate rejected two and reduced the remainder to twelve, which were accepted by the House. 10 Footnote Debate in the House began on July 21, 17 8 9, and final passage was had on August 24, 17 8 9. 1 Annals of Cong. 660–779 . The Senate considered the proposals from September 2 to September 9, but no journal was kept. The final version compromised between the House and Senate was adopted September 24 and 25. See 2 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 9 8 3–1167 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) .

Consequently, the first ten amendments, which are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, along with one that was not ratified and one that was not ratified until 1992, were proposed by Congress on September 25, 17 8 9, when they passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on September 24. 11 Footnote 1 Annals of Cong. 8 8 , 913 (17 8 9) They appear officially in 1 Stat. 97 (17 8 9). Ratification of the first ten amendments was completed on December 15, 1791, when the eleventh state (Virginia) approved these amendments, there being then fourteen states in the Union.

The several state legislatures ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution on the following dates: New Jersey, November 20, 17 8 9; Maryland, December 19, 17 8 9; North Carolina, December 22, 17 8 9; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; Delaware, January 2 8 , 1790; New York, February 27, 1790; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791. The two amendments that were not ratified prescribed the ratio of representation to population in the House, and specified that no law varying the compensation of Members of Congress should be effective until after an intervening election of Representatives. 12 Footnote Herman V. Ames , The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History 1 8 4, 1 8 5 (1 8 96) . The first was ratified by ten states (one short of the requisite number) and the second, by six states; subsequently, this second proposal was taken up by the states in the period 19 8 0&# 8 211;1992 and was proclaimed as ratified as of May 7, 1992. Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified the first ten amendments in 1939.

• 8 5"> 8 5">   Jump to essay-1 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 17 8 7 , at 5 8 7&# 8 211; 8 8 (Max Farrand ed., 1937) .
• 8 6"> 8 6">   Jump to essay-2 Id. at 617&# 8 211;1 8 .
• 8 7"> 8 7">   Jump to essay-3 The argument most used by proponents of the Constitution was that inasmuch as Congress was delegated no power to do those things which a bill of rights would proscribe no bill of rights was necessary and that it might be dangerous because it would contain exceptions to powers not granted and might therefore afford a basis for claiming more than was granted. The Federalist No. 8 4 (Alexander Hamilton) .
• 8 8 "> 8 8 ">   Jump to essay-4 Substantial excerpts from the debate in the country and in the ratifying conventions are set out in 1 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 435&# 8 211;620 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) ; 2 id. at 627&# 8 211;9 8 0 . The earlier portions of volume 1 trace the origins of the various guarantees back to the Magna Carta.
• 8 9"> 8 9">   Jump to essay-5 In a letter to Madison, Jefferson indicated what he did not like about the proposed Constitution. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of the fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations. . . . Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. 12 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 43 8 , 440 (J. Boyd ed., 195 8 ) . He suggested that nine States should ratify and four withhold ratification until amendments adding a bill of rights were adopted. Id. at 557, 570, 5 8 3 . Jefferson still later endorsed the plan put forward by Massachusetts to ratify and propose amendments. 14 id. at 649 .
•   Jump to essay-6 Thus, George Washington observed in letters that a ratified Constitution could be amended but that making such amendments conditions for ratification was ill-advised. 11 The Writings of George Washington 249 (W. Ford ed., 1 8 91) .
•   Jump to essay-7 2 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 627&# 8 211;9 8 0 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) . See also H. Ames , The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution 19 (1 8 96) .

In any event, following ratification, Madison in his successful campaign for a seat in the House firmly endorsed the proposal of a bill of rights. [I]t is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it ought to prepare and recommend to the States for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of Conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trials by jury, security against general warrants & c. 5 The Writings of James Madison 319 (G. Hunt ed., 1904) .

•   Jump to essay-9 1 Annals of Cong. 424&# 8 211;50 (June 8 , 17 8 9) . The proposals as introduced are at pp. 433&# 8 211;36. The Members of the House were indisposed to moving on the proposals.
•   Jump to essay-10 Debate in the House began on July 21, 17 8 9, and final passage was had on August 24, 17 8 9. 1 Annals of Cong. 660&# 8 211;779 . The Senate considered the proposals from September 2 to September 9, but no journal was kept. The final version compromised between the House and Senate was adopted September 24 and 25. See 2 The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 9 8 3&# 8 211;1167 (B. Schwartz ed., 1971) .
•   Jump to essay-11 1 Annals of Cong. 8 8 , 913 (17 8 9)
•   Jump to essay-12 Herman V. Ames , The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States During the First Century of Its History 1 8 4, 1 8 5 (1 8 96) .