A Re-Write of the Bill of Rights through the Preamble

  • Share on Tumblr

Published 12-14-2010

With the 219th anniversary of the adoption of the document known as Bill of Rights only hours away, every American who has graduated from high school should be able to explain the original intent of the Amendments in ten minutes or less. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The last thing the statists want is a constitutionally educated populace. Thus, government and the education system it controls continue to distort and hide the true intent of the Amendments.

For many years the statists have been attempting to convince the people of these United States that the document known as the Bill of Rights is the source of their rights and government was granted the power to determine the extent of those rights. Fortunately, there is a quick and simple way to disprove this assertion and show the true intent of the Amendments.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the States for ratification it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. The preamble contained three paragraphs, but most modern editions of the Bill of Rights, especially those printed by government, only include the third paragraph. This omission is intentional because a reading of the preamble shows that the first paragraph discloses the true intent of the proposed amendments.

“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 (the federal government’s) 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.”

The sole purpose of the proposed amendments, as stated in the preamble, was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses“ were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would not grant the people any rights or grant the federal government the power to determine the extent of the people’s rights; they would place additional restraints on the powers of the federal government. Each restraint is either a qualified restraint or an out right denial of power.

Based on the wording of the preamble, the amendments would place constitutional prohibitions on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers“ concerning the rights of the people.

Another way to illustrate this point was to re-write the Amendments and insert restrictive language into each Amendment except the Tenth. This re-write is structured to preserve the original intent of the Founders as expressed in the preamble to the Bill of Rights

Article I…………………… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any 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 II…………………… Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Article III…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment contains an exception to the restraint and authorizes Congress to enact legislation to qualify the exception.)

Article IV…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, 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 V…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person 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 the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI…………………… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate 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; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII…………………… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

The Original Constitution

Get the New Book Today!

Article IX…………………… The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X…………………… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since each Amendment is either a qualified restraint on the exercise of power or an out right denial of power or a combination thereof, the insertion of restrictive phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the original intent of the Amendments.

As shown by this re-write of the Bill of Rights, none of the Amendments define or limit the extent of the individual rights of the people. The Amendments do, however, define and enumerate the extent of the restraints placed on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and the powers reserved to the States.

Contrary to popular belief, the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights are simply enumerated restraints on the powers of the federal government and an extension of the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

About Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003. Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

8 comments
Dennis Tuchler
Dennis Tuchler

What do you do about the current doctrine of the Supreme court with respect to the "implicit' equal protection" limitation on the federal government in the fifth amendment? or the "implicit" inclusion of most of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause" which applies to the States?

Alexander De Witt
Alexander De Witt

Article II…………………… Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

The following language should be included in Article II:

"...to keep and bear Arms, or to regulate the right to keep and bear arms in any way whatsoever"

If this language is missing, then what is or is not a right, and how that right should be regulated becomes a matter of debate, which ends up with a judge making the decision.

What rights are is not defined in the Constitution. This is a single point of failure that can be used to shoehorn in regulations of an infinite number. Either you define rights (bad idea) or you clean up the language to make explicit that the ability to keep arms and ammo is not to be subjected to regulation.

Randy
Randy

I Am a gun toting member of the NRA and Concealed handgun instructor. Do you believe that full auto guns should be allowed to the general public? There is a line that I believe is correct. I do not believe that a person should be able to secure a full auto like a semi auto hand gun.

I look forward to your response

Chris
Chris

"No Freeman Shall Ever Be Debarred the Use of Arms"
(Thomas Jefferson)

What makes think that my God given natural right to defend myself should be limited in any way. Do you think by keeping law-abiding freemen from having automatic weapons stops the criminals from having them? If you do, you are completely mistaken. Be careful your statist streak is showing...

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Regardless of what you think people should own or not the law prevents the federal government from banning them in anyway. There is no exception written into the law itself however state and local governments can restrict firearms in anyway they want.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I'm not sure what you are saying but the tenth amendment states that states can do anything unless specifically prohibited by the constitution. It has to written 'states can't do XYZ' in order for a state to be prohibited from doing XYZ. There is no prohibition against a state regulating guns.

Also, the bill of rights did not alter the constitution. It placed no new restrictions on state nor did it give the federal government new powers. Its only there to strengthen the constitution's restriction on the federal government so the 2nd amendment only prevents the federal government from banning guns.

W W Woodward
W W Woodward

@ Philosopherking “… however state and local governments can restrict firearms in anyway they want.”

Take a very close look at the 14th Amendment, and at the history surrounding it. Read the existing records of the debates in congress and the statements made by the proponents of and detractors from the amendment. Understand that the amendment may or may not have been properly ratified. Know that several of the northern states opposed the amendment and that the southern states were coerced, by the very real threat of continuing martial law, into its ratification. Note that a politically influenced supreme court word-twisted the intent of the 14th Amendment into a version that was in line with the prevailing political thought when the Slaughterhouse cases were decided. Understand that the court also took upon itself to institute the doctrine of incorporation when rights of Americans protected by the 14th Amendment were argued before the court. The 14th Amendment was written in easily understood American English and was intended to protect the rights of Americans from state and local government edicts that would abuse those rights. Like it or not; the Second Amendment overturned anything to the contrary that existed within the original body of our Constitution, and the 14th Amendment gave state and local governments uncontrovertible notice that they are forbidden to pass any law that would abridge the rights of American citizens. “… shall not be infringed.” without exception, still stands.

Guest - W W Woodward - Spur, Texas
[W3]

W W Woodward
W W Woodward

I have been a certified law enforcement firearms instructor for approximately 20 years. I instruct marksmanship, safety, and legal use of force in shotgun, rifle, revolver and pistol. I believe that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says. Notice; there is a period immediately following the term, “shall not be infringed”. The existence of that period cannot be debated. And, I believe that there is a reason for the existence of the period. That should answer any question as to the right of the people to keep and bear ANY arm.

When We The People allow government to whittle away at our unalienable rights we are opening ourselves to the loss of ALL our rights. We should never allow government to take from us that which government hasn’t given us. We are entitled to ALL our unalienable rights with or without the existence of government.

Guest - W W Woodward - Spur, Texas
[W3]

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, TokyoTom, liberty activist, kirby harris, Richmond Patriots and others. Richmond Patriots said: TenthAmendment: #10th: A Re-Write of the Bill of Rights through the Preamble http://bit.ly/gvDnai: TenthAmendmen… http://bit.ly/f89w5A [...]

  2. [...] Written by: Bob Greenslade The preamble to the document known as the Bill of Rights states that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish [...]

  3. [...] here to the 10th Amendment Center and have a read. Works for [...]

  4. [...] preamble to the document known as the Bill of Rights states that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish [...]