The Bill of Rights was HUGE mistake

[Originalist]

Now I know some will take exception to that statement, but I stand by what I said. In fact, the 2nd Amendment should be the FIRST one we repeal!

Now I know what some of you are thinking, "But if we repeal the 2nd amendment that means we'd be giving up our right to bear arms!! If we repeal the 1st amendment we'd have no more freedom of speech and Congress could establish a national church!!"

Please hold that thought and consider the wisdom of one of the greatest conservative scholars of our time, Dr. Walter E. Williams.....

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "Bills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks,

Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would ...

Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads:

Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

Can you imagine Madelyn Murray O'hara going before the Supreme Court trying to explain how prayer in public school violated the Constitution if the "separation clause", much less the entire 1st amendment if it was not in the Constitution? No Federal court would have even heard the case.

Had there been no 2nd Amendment, there would be no way for the Supreme Court to repeal gun rights. All we are waiting for now is for SCOTUS to twist the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment The Constitution's silence on gun ownership would have meant that it was an area left up to the States.

Gay marriage. Abortion. All up to the states where it was meant to be.

Sadly we are seeing Alexander Hamilton's concerns being justified before our very eyes.

Oh, and by the way, one of the proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights read.....

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

This is the exact wording of the 2nd article of the Articles of Confederation. The states that wanted this added to the Bill of Rights were told that this was not needed since the Constitution did not declare that the States were renouncing these things, but that if they were still concerned, they could rest assured that the 9th and 10th Amendments covered all of this.

Did you catch that? This is a clear admission that the States were NOT surrendering their sovereignty upon joining the Union and that the Constitution's silence on secession meant it was something entirely in the hands of the States and not the Federal Government. I stress this point especially to answer those who say, "Where in the Constitution does it say a State can secede from the Union?" The real question is, where does it say they can't?