Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Paul Jacob :: Townhall.com Columnist
A day for rights
by Paul Jacob
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

The 217th anniversary of an event cannot warrant an especially big celebration. As far as I know, 217 isn’t a celebratory number. Not like 200, or, perhaps 222 (that’s for those of you who like to see all the numerals line up on your odometer). Maybe in Babylonian math it is, or Mayan; not in ours.

But if the event is important enough, the anniversary remains worth celebrating, even in off years.

I’m referring to tomorrow’s designation as Bill of Rights Day. December 15, 1791 was the day the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution. Now, before you send out an e-card, or write a check to your favorite rights-defending institution — the ACLU is the most famous, but there is also the Individual Rights Foundation and the Institute for Justice (among others) — it is probably worth clearing up a few things about the Bill of Rights.

1. Without it, the Constitution would not have been adopted.

The mis-named “anti-Federalists” were deeply concerned. They were afraid that the Constitution would quickly morph away from what the Federalists promised, away from a truly federal union where the states retained sovereignty. They feared that the Constitution would not be treated as a federalist document at all, but as a nationalist one. And the fact that quite a number of so-called Federalists had come out for nationalism and monarchy and a whole bunch of other rightly loathed institutions and isms, didn’t help the anti-Federalists sit easy.

You can learn a lot about all this in Kevin R. C. Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. Gutzman makes clear how the nationalist-leaning Federalists, needing anti-Federalist support, cooked up a fairly federalist document.

Even so, the anti-Federalists were suspicious. Where were the guarantees of individual rights?

So, those much-maligned, truly federalist “anti-Federalists” gave us the one part of the Constitution that has been successfully used, on multiple occasions, to push back government. Many states ratified the Constitution contingent upon a Bill of Rights being added on immediately. And so it came to pass (or: “be ratified”).

When you say something politically incorrect, or when you pray in such a way that in some other place and time would have earned you a fiery death, thank the anti-Federalists . . . for the Bill of Rights.

2. The Bill of Rights is not a partisan document.

The rights recognized by the first ten amendments are central to American life. And yet in my lifetime they have been treated in amazingly partisan fashion. Some amendments get labeled “right-wing” and others “left-wing.” Worse yet, when a party puts its man into the executive office, the partisans of that politician tend to let his administration off the hook for his rights violations. But once the man is out of power, then the partisans go back to talking about the importance of civil rights . . . and violations by the “other guys.”

This happened, notoriously, during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Clinton’s record on rights was abysmal, but you didn’t hear much complaint from Democrats. But once Bush got in power, the Democrats rightly screamed bloody murder about Bush’s forays into despotism.

Similarly, the Republican defenders of rights during the Clinton years too often became apologists for rights violations as directed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

This is a disgusting spectacle no matter which shoe is on which foot.

And it is worth noting that, because of this, Republicans — now on the outs in a very big way — have little moral capital to draw upon. It was squandered during the last seven or so years.

I presume that the new united government under the Democrats will present Republicans with many opportunities to defend the Bill of Rights. It’s just a pity that Republicans will have to spend some of their efforts merely beating back their own horrible reputations, building up new stores of honor.

Of course, across the political spectrum there are exceptions. There were people “on the left” who excoriated the Clinton administration for its many illiberal violations of rights. There were many people often labeled “on the right” who kept up the fight to conserve our traditional rights.

But, alas, there were too few. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web, via e-mail, and on radio stations across America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Bill of Rights
I don't think that the Bill of Rights defends our rights, which were granted to us by our Creator. I think it defines our rights.
There is a difference.
Our Rights have been defensible for all of mankind, but our Founding Fathers laid them out in very plain language, defining them so that there should not be any need to defend them. Except of course, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court(how magnamious!) and let us not forget the wonderful ACLU.

Governmental tyranny and feelgood idiots
"look at other nations that dont allow GUN ownership compare vs US" Yep, Adolph Hitler banned guns, and the Jews complied. We know how that worked out for them.
The poor fools in the EU have no weapons, no elected officials, no real rights..and when they have a referendum that turns out different from the way the Lords want they get to vote again and again until the results are "right".
Guns in private citizens hands are the Teeth of the First Amendment.
Any other argument is plan silly...hunting, indeed....
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.