From Gribbet...

Jay's partner in derring-do over at Stop The ACLU has a say about the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights.

"In 1787, the Congress of the newly formed United States met to discuss changes in the Articles of Confederation. What resulted was a complete redrafting of the Constitution under a Federalist system. The new document contained 7 Articles outlining the duties and responsibilities of the federal government. It was written very specific on certain issues to clearly define the duties and restrictions of the federal government. It was written vague on other issues as to leave enough uncertainty that the matter should be defined by the individual states.Some of the original signers of the Constitution actually refused to sign it.

When a guarantee was made that if they would sign the document to be referred to the people for ratification, the first order of business would be to write a "Bill of Rights" defining individual rights of the people. It then it became a responsibility of those who were stressing the federalist government to sell the American people on the idea.

From this came the Federalist Papers which were written in order to be reassurances to the people that they would have specific rights and the government would be limited in scope.Then as promised, the first Congress took up the matter of adopting a "Bill of Rights".

Ten Amendments were written into our founding document which outlined specific rights and limitations on the government. The catch all of these rights as defined by our first Congress was the 9th and 10th

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."

In opposition to this new "Bill of Rights" was our first Secretary of the Treasury, author of several of the Federalist Papers, and member of the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton.

He said in Federalist 84,"I...affirm that bills of rights...are not only unnecessary...but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers, which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Al was a very wise man. Why say that the dogcatcher shall not give orders to the President, when it would be inconceiveable for so lowly a civil servant to do so? Al was worried that weasels would use the Bill of Rights to do harm to the people. He was correct.

The duties and restrictions of the Federal Government were clearly outlined, but the weasels are changing that to legislate from the courts what in their warped little minds they believe the framers were hinting at. Or, claiming that the framers were intentionally vague to allow the constitution to "grow".

Like mold on an old piece of bread if the people are not allowed to participate in such growth spurts.

This form of government, the very reason FOR the government, was to PROTECT the rights of CITIZENS from an over-reaching, totalitarian authority. The framers had just witnessed what happens when a kingdom governs it's subjects in a ham-handed fashion. They fought this oppressive government and replaced it with a system that relies upon the people to decide, through their representatives as well as by direct vote, what is fair and what is not with regards to Constitutional changes.