United States Bill of Rights Essay Example

15, 1791. The amendments are currently known as the Bill of Rights. On the other end, the Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution. The 2 amendments out of the 12 that Congress had proposed to the states were rejected: This is because primary managed allocating representation in the House of Representatives; the second kept individuals from Congress from voting to change their compensation until the following session of Congress. This unique "Second Amendment," also referred to as Original Bill of Rights was at long last added to the Constitution as the 27th Amendment, over 200 years after the ratification (Morrison, 1949, p.140). Bill of Rights Day is remembered on December 15 every year, as called for by a joint determination of Congress endorsed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941.

The importance of the Bill of Rights

Primarily important, the Bill of Rights represents the initial step that "We the People" took in altering the Constitution "in Order to shape a more flawless Union." The first, unamended Constitution was an amazing accomplishment, building up a progressive structure of government that place power in the hands of the general population (Roth, 1998, p.6). The Bill of Rights based on that establishment, securing our most treasured American opportunities, including the right to speak freely, religion, get together, and due procedure of law. For over two centuries—as we have worked out, confined, extended, tried, and faced off regarding those flexibilities—the Bill of Rights has molded and has formed what is presently the American (Dudas, 2005, p.732).

The ten Amendments

According to Jacobson (2009, p.221), the ten amendments making up the Bill of Rights include:

Amendment (I): Congress might make no

law regarding a foundation of religion, or restricting the free practice thereof; or compressing the right to speak freely, or of the press; or the privilege of the general population quietly to collect, and to appeal to the legislature for a change of grievances.

Amendment (II): An all around directed local army, being important to the security of a free state, the privilege of the general population to keep and remain battle ready, should not be encroached.

Amendment (III): No fighter should, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the assent of the owner, or in time of war, however in a way to be recommended by law.

Amendment (IV): The privilege of the general population to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against nonsensical inquiries and seizures, might not be disregarded, and no warrants should issue, but rather upon reasonable justification, bolstered by pledge or attestation, and especially portraying the spot to be looked, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment (V): No individual should be held to respond in due order regarding a capital, or generally scandalous wrongdoing, unless on a presentment or prosecution of an amazing jury, aside from in cases emerging in the area or maritime powers, or in the state army, when in genuine administration in time of war or open threat; nor might any individual be subject for the same offense to be twice placed in danger of life or appendage; nor should be constrained in any criminal body of evidence to be an observer against himself, nor be denied of life, freedom, or property, without due procedure of law; nor should private property be

taken for open use, without just remuneration.

Amendment (VI):In every single criminal indictment, the charged should appreciate the privilege to a quick and open trial, by a fair-minded jury of the state and area wherein the wrongdoing might have been carried out, which region might have been already learned by law, and to be educated of the nature and reason for the allegation; to be gone up against with the observers against him; to have obligatory procedure for getting witnesses to support him, and to have the help of direction for his safeguard.

Amendment (VII): In suits at normal law, where the worth in contention should surpass twenty dollars, the privilege of trial by jury might be safeguarded, and no certainty attempted by a jury, might be generally rethought in any court of the United States, than as indicated by the guidelines of the regular law.

Amendment (VIII): Unreasonable safeguard might not be required, nor over the top fines forced, nor remorseless and abnormal disciplines perpetrated.

Amendment (IX): The list in the Constitution, of certain rights, should not be translated to deny or belittle others held by the general population.

Amendment (IX): The list in the Constitution, of certain rights, should not be understood to deny or stigmatize others held by the general population.

Amendment (X): The forces not assigned to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied by it to the states, are held to the states separately, or to the general population.

Bill of Rights versus Federal Government

The most datable dialog that has been advanced is the cooperation between the federal government and the Bill of Rights. To begin with, the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution

to address reasons for alarm raised by the Anti-Federalists amid the sanction of the Constitution that the Constitution did not give adequate security against misuse of force by the federal government (Jacobson 2009, p.221).
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, initially did not think a Bill of Rights was fundamental. He thought the Constitution gave no energy to the federal government that would take into account an infringement of the privileges of the general population. Madison later changed his position, influenced essentially by Thomas Jefferson, and, with the assistance of others, drafted 20 amendments that were proposed to the initially United States Congress as stated earlier (Dippel, 2005, p.153)..

It is important to understand that the Bill of Rights delineates that our Founders comprehended that for individual opportunities to be expansive, the force of the federal government must be restricted. The United States, be that as it may, has moved far from its establishing standards, particularly amid late decades. Our continually developing federal government is mediating into more parts of citizens’ lives, particularly through bureaucratic controls, and is diminishing citizens’ opportunities all the while.

The Government at all levels is accomplishing increasingly things that were once left to private people and bunches, and the federal government is accomplishing increasingly things that were previously the area of state and nearby governments, where more noteworthy responsibility to the general population is regularly conceivable. One need just take a gander at the HHS order—constraining bosses to damage their religious convictions, under agony of punishment, by paying for and giving fetus removal pill protection scope—to see the mischief created by an overextending government. The conservation of citizens’ freedoms is a day

by day fight, something our Founders caught on. The procedure of downsizing the size and part of government and returning points of confinement to it is a long one. Be that as it may, federal government should be our worker and not our lord; nobody ought to question the significance of this endeavor.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bills of Rights, which presently are first ten amendments of the constitution, were primarily intended to guarantee the fundamental rights and common freedoms of the American Citizens. However, the continually developing federal government is mediating into more parts of citizens’ lives, particularly through bureaucratic controls, and is diminishing citizens’ opportunities all the while. Be that as it may, federal government should be citizens’ “worker” and not the “lord”

Work Cited

1. Amar, Akhil Reed. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution." Yale Law Journal(1991): 131-110.
2. Dippel, Horst. "Modern constitutionalism, an introduction to a history in need of writing." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 73 (2005): 153-69.
3. Dudas, Jeffrey R. "In the Name of Equal Rights:“Special” Rights and the Politics of Resentment in Post–Civil Rights America." Law & Society Review39.4 (2005): 723-758.
4. Jacobson, Matthew Frye, and Matthew Frye Jacobson. Roots too: White ethnic revival in post- civil rights America. Harvard University Press, 2009: 1-221.
5. Morrison, Stanley. "Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Judicial Interpretation." Stanford Law Review (1949): 140-173.
6. Roth, Kenneth. "Sidelined on human rights: America bows out." Foreign Affairs (1998): 2-6.