The bill of rights refers to the significant rights of the American citizens and plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights from infringement by the government. The original constitution was outlined in Philadelphia in 1787 and was ratified by the different states in America. The original constitution laid a base for the bill of rights. However, this constitution contained less number of individual rights guarantees and was focused on launching a system for an effective federal government. Persons such as Pinckney and Madison are perceived as the ‘architects’ of the bill of rights that is applied in America today. Pinckney submitted proposals for certain rights be included in this constitution, but they were ignored.
Madison addressed that the Constitution safeguarded the freedom for individuals via the division of powers that made it cumbersome for the majorities to liaise and grab authority to use against authorities. In the ratification debate, the anti-federalists were against the constitution because they viewed it as a system that discouraged liberties. Moreover, the anti-federalists proposed that the delegates should encompass the accomplishment of the provisions of the constitution if they were motivated by protecting the rights of American citizens. The serious of doubts on the ratifications of the Constitution contributed to the willingness to take the matter to a series of ten amendments called the Bill of rights.
Significance of the bill of rights
According to Chilton & Mila (p.7) the significance of the bill of rights is apparent when the bill is perceived to be a symbol of the famous American culture. Nevertheless, it is an integrated mode of dealing with numerous constitutional subjects that grabbed the attention of these citizens and the government for a long period in the US historical calendar (ibid).
Chilton and Mila (p.6) postulate that the bill of rights is also significant because it hinders the federal government from misusing its authority against the citizens. The benefits of the bill of rights are justified because it agitates for several issues such as the freedom of speech, religion or the right to own firearms within the boundaries of the federal government. Madison believed that the presence of the bill of rights restrained the government its powers in relation to the rights of the citizens. Nonetheless, the American bill of rights was significant because it played a vital role in unifying the 13 states (ibid).
In the contemporary America, the bill of rights is still significant to the American citizens. Chilton & Mila (p.4) view that the bill of rights necessitate that the individuals should have sufficient knowledge on them for the sake of understanding their rights and freedoms. Despite criticisms among individuals on the subject of the bill of rights as ‘parchment barriers', the bill of rights provide a prevention on the encroachment on the American citizens rights. The powers of the federal government were slightly weakened, and the rights of the individuals rose by a certain extend (ibid).
Arguments against
The American Bill of rights elicited mixed reactions from the public in unimaginable ways. Critics of the bill of rights gave reasons why it should not be allowed in the American constitution. For instance, they argued that the bill of rights will politicize the courts. It will promote judicial imperialism where the power bestowed to the elected representatives will be transferred to the judges. The bill of rights will establish the value of judges in the US as they will become powerful than the Congress’ statutes. The bill of rights will empower the judges and trust a group of individual may prove fatal in the American judicial system.
Furthermore, the faultfinders protested that the bill of rights would limit individuals’ rights. Even though the bill of rights will be comprehensive, it will remain with the capacity to confine the basic rights of the citizens. When James Madison was charged with the responsibility of drafting the bill of rights, he was hesitant and unwilling. Madison wondered who was responsible for defining the rights of the people at first (Amar 1137). Since time immemorial, it has always proved difficult to categorize the fundamental human rights, and this has been a problem with established courts. In most incidences, the bill of rights has paid attention to the criminal process and property rights and neglected fundamental rights.
Instead of introducing the bill of rights into the American constitution, the ones who opposed it preferred the enacting specific laws (Amar 1131). Even though the bill of rights is said to protect human rights, it comprises of numerous loopholes that interfere with the judicial system. If specific laws could be enacted, human rights could have been protected in a better way. The specific legislation would ensure that the laws are expressed in a detailed manner making them more specific. The bill of rights lacks the capacity to protect people because it lacks comprehensive information to safeguard the common interests. Specific laws would be well-detailed and will protect human rights irrespective of their races, ethnicities, social class, religion, education, or any other custom of discrimination.
Arguments for
The proponents of the bill of rights advocated for it because of judicial action and legislative inaction (Beaney 253). As long as we can remember, members of the senate and congress have always dodged the controversial issues within the society, allowing the courts to deal with them. The United States Congress had remained reluctant in addressing critical issues like electoral inequality, racial discrimination, rights to individual privacy, and the abortion law amongst others. The legislators preferred to let the courts deal with the problems. Beaney (253) claimed that the best way to give the mandate to the courts of law was by entreating the bill of rights. The courts would be empowered to guarantee advance basic rights.
The supporters of the American bill of rights criticized the perceptions that it could allow the judges of the Supreme Court to misuse power. They termed this notion ill-informed by stating the Constitution limited the power of the judiciary. Even though the constitution allowed judges to formulate the common law, it also limited their power. They were only allowed to establish common laws in reference to the cases at the courts. The constitution protects the judges from manipulating principles that assures the basic fundamental rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court in the United States condemned and made it crystal clear that there was no common-law right to privacy. The bill of rights would provide judges with the power to protect the fundamental human rights.
The bill of rights means that the interest of the American citizens should be placed above politics. For a long period of time, politicians have been concerned with their selfish interests but time for change has come. The bill of rights ensures that the values of our society are appreciated and come first above any political interests. It defines and expresses the will of the people creating a happy society. The bill of rights creates the social cohesion among the general public and eliminates notions that the American constitution is just a document that lacks the mandate to protect the public.
Current or recent laws and/or court decisions that directly involves the bill of rights
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision
Horwitz (155) states that the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is a momentous decision by the US Supreme Court. It took place in 2014. The court decision permitted diligently held for-profit organizations to be excused from a statute its holders religiously object to if there are less restraining means of advancing the statute’s interest (Horwitz 158). As far as American history is concerned, the Supreme Court first allowed the claim of religious beliefs from closely held for-profit organizations. Law experts said that the decision was based on the elucidation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (p.161). Furthermore, it is argued that the requirement fails to report whether these organizations are enshrined by the free-exercise of religion clause documented in the 1st amendment. In the same ruling, the court objected giving the contraceptive mandate to For-profit organizations. The Supreme Court issued replaced the decision with an alternative that allowed the government to protect female workers in the closely-held organizations who preferred to keep their birth control private.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case (2011)
The Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case was based on the principle of the University of California, Hastings College of Law regulating official recognition of students unions which necessitated the groups to accept all the students regardless of their status or beliefs to achieve recognition. The issue of the court case was, did a university’s renunciation of official acknowledgment to a student association whose membership necessities violated the school’s non-discrimination strategy infringe the students’ First Amendment privileges?
Massaro discusses the arguments of the Christian legal society (CLS) in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case. CLS views that the disfavored organizations cannot be denied their right to be recognized because of their unpopular opinions (p.7). Another argument is that a principle that requires all the student unions to approve all members is exaggerated on achieving a sincere educational goal (p.8). Furthermore, CLS claim that the policy denied the student’s associations rights (p.7). Hastings did not accept the members of the CLS to socialize with anyone they preferred because they were forced to relate with every student (ibid). On the other hand, the arguments of Martinez were different from those of CLS (P.10). Martinez argued that the Hastings policy applied equality because it was non-discriminative. Moreover, he viewed that Hastings posed reasonable restraints in its acceptance of student organizations (p.11). He argued that the First Amendment did not expect the school to sanction discrimination.
Work cited
Amar, Akhil Reed. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution." Yale Law Journal (1991): 1131-1210.
Beaney, William M. "Right to Privacy and American Law, The." Law & Contemp. Probs. 31 (1966): 253.
Chilton, Adam S., and Mila Versteeg. "Do Constitutional Rights Make a Difference?." American Journal of Political Science (2015).
Horwitz, Paul. "The Hobby Lobby Moment." Harvard Law Review, Forthcoming (2014).
Massaro, Toni M. "Christian Legal Society v. Martinez: Six Frames." Hastings Const. LQ 38 (2010): 569.
