« Just another Saturday night in Chicago |
| Transparency? »
Which Government Does the U.S. Bill of Rights Limit?
To answer this question, we must start by determining who ratified the U.S. Constitution. Was it ratified by individuals or by the states?
The first answer can be found in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution itself (emphasis added in all quotations):
The second answer can be found in the journal of the convention, which records only the votes of the states. Once more, it was the states (not individual delegates) that cast the votes in the convention. Additionally, each state specified what portion of its delegation needed to be present to act and cast the states' vote.
It is also critically important to understand the structure and construction of the U.S. Constitution before attempting to read and interpret it. So what was the purpose of drafting and ratifying the U.S. Constitution? Very simply, the purpose was to define and limit the authority of the federal government. As Madison specified in Federalist 45:
Further, Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the authority delegated to the federal government is supreme:
But while the U.S. Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, this is entirely different from the federal government being supreme in everything it does.
To be sure that the federal government's authority was limited to the powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution, many states' ratification was contingent upon amendments being passed, including what became the 10th Amendment (which Jefferson considered the "foundation" of the Constitution):
The ultimate check on federal power by a state can be uncovered via a quick read of the state ratifying resolutions (e.g., Virginia, New York, Rhode Island). These resolutions illustrate the fundamental right of rescission (i.e., powers delegated to the federal government can be reassumed). Take the NY ratification resolution for example:
After reflecting on all of these rather clear-cut facts, one must ask: why would the states create an agent (i.e., the federal government) to limit the states' power?
An objective person must come to the obvious conclusion that the states did no such a thing -- especially after that same person reads the beginning of the almost-forgotten Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
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.
Regardless of if one thinks that it is a good measure to have the federal government policing the states for any signs of them infringing on the states citizens' inalienable rights (federalism, anyone?), the fact remains that the Bill of Rights was drafted to further clarify limitations on the federal government, not limitations on the states.
Wait...did I just hear someone ask about the "Incorporation Doctrine?"
Joshua is the co-host of the Forgotten Men radio show, which airs Saturdays at 12 noon ET on AM930 WFMD. The Forgotten Men focus on the current political and economic challenges through the lens of the Constitution and federalism.
FOLLOW US ON