The Bill of Rights is a combination of the basic rights, freedoms, and liberties for U.S. citizens as enlisted in the Universal Human Rights Charter. It forms a key element of the Constitution in the United States of America where it was developed. Among other things, the Bill of Rights comprises of the freedom of speech, the right to religion, the right to security, and the right to belong to a particular political party. The debate on the Bill of Rights can extend massively because of the interesting issues it addresses in its articulation the constitution. Ultimately, the Bill of Rights is helpful in understanding the stages that went along with its ratification of the constitution. It goes a long way in explaining the ancient American History and the evolution of the Constitution in incorporating the Bill of Rights at its core pillar. Outstandingly, the Bill of Rights was and still is, significant to the citizens of the United States in that it was capable of getting public acceptance even after undergoing a series of objections from the various anti-federalists groups. Indeed, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution not only enhanced public acceptance of the U.S. Constitution in that it protected the rights of the people, but it also gained enough support from Anti-Federalists to ensure ratification of the U.S.
The process of articulating the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was mainly faced by the problem of dynamic ideologies that were conflicting between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Berkin argues that there were conflicting ideologies about the role of the state in protecting the citizens whereby the Federalists believed the government could protect its citizens without necessary incorporating the Bill of Rights in the Constitution (Berkin 2). This was contrary to the Anti-Federalists who argued that, for the effectiveness of the Constitution to protect its citizens, the Bill of Rights must be included in the constitution. According to Berkin, the Federalists were of the view that the government can be effective without the ratification of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution (5). As such, they proposed the implementation of the original version of the constitution with the exclusion of the Bill of Rights.
On the contrary, the Anti-Federalists were very aggressive on this issue that they called for a Constitutional Convention to find out whether they could arrive at a consensus, where coverage of human rights was guaranteed in the constitution. In 1787, George Mason rose with full agility and summoned a convention which he targeted at the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution (Berkin 5). However, the take was not good since the motion was objected by the Federalists whom one could question whether they were so primitive about human rights or it was just out of negligence that they were opposing the bill. Therefore, Berkin allows people to understand the historical coverage of the events and circumstances that unfolded before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Besides, it created room for a better understanding of the take of the people on the motion of the Bill of Rights and the role of both the federal government and the Anti-federalists. Berkin seems to take sides by revealing that she supported the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Berkin argues that the Bill of Rights will be able to pave the way for people to exercise their freedom which marked an important transformational change (Berkin 5). The author provides that, the motion concerning the Bill of Rights inclusion into the U.S constitution gained support from all corners of the nation and more so, from the vast population and the Anti-Federalists who championed the constitution changes.
The process involved in the ratification of the Constitution was not an easy task. Wolfenburg argues that there existed several misunderstandings of the Bill of Rights’ perspective and its inclusion in the Constitution (15). According to him, the ratification of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was a very necessary step towards the establishment of protectionist policies to the citizens of the United States. Outstandingly, he has continued to argue that, was it not for the efforts of the Anti-Federalists in campaigning about the addition of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the United States citizens would not be enjoying some of the fundamental rights and freedoms as they do today (Wolfensberger 15). As such, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion or worship, as well as the freedom of association and liberty would be some of the critical rights that individuals in the United States would be curtailed from enjoying.
Additionally, the Bill of Rights is an integral part of the American People and the only significant contribution that the Anti-Federalists offered to the people. Remarkably, the addition of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution marked a very important stage in the history of the United States since it was the beginning of a more civilized nation (Maier 468). Ultimately, when the Anti-Federalists finally made their way through by pushing the Federal government to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, all the liberties and freedoms of individuals became well stated under the newly implemented constitution.
The Bill of Rights comprises of 10 major provisions that were included in the original Constitution that sought to ensure the Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens are secure. The 10 amendments of the constitution put special emphasis on the liberty and freedom of individuals (Konvitz 84). For instance, the first amendment in the Bill of Rights Charter outlines that, individual freedom of religion, speech, assembly and press should be respected at all times. In this regard, an individual freedom of speech should not be curtailed unless under unavoidable circumstances like when the utterances defy the normal conventions of living (Konvitz 84). Other types of freedoms included protection against unreasonable arrests and seizures as well as equality before the law. Altogether, the amendments had a common goal of making the U.S a better place for human survival. Since the amendment of the Bill of Rights, the U.S citizens have benefited a lot through security assurance and freedom of expression, amongst others. Consequently, in the modern America, citizens can gather anywhere without fear that they are breaching the rule of law.
Nevertheless, there was a raging conflict over the implementation of the Bill of Rights. The issue of ratifying the Bill of Rights is one of the biggest challenges the Americans have encountered in the struggle for their freedom and human rights (Jones et al. 212). Jones et al. bring out the conflict between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton as a representation of the wholly opposing sides between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Alexander was a representation of the Federalist group while Madison was a representation of the Anti-Federalist group (Jones et al. 212). As such, the main idea is to display the conflict between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the process of making the constitution. Accordingly, Madison and his group of Anti-Federalists believed that having the Bill of Rights added in the constitution was an important step towards ensuring a more participatory citizenry with a greater sense of checks and balances over the federal government. On the contrary, the Federalists advocated for a proactive citizenry with a limited role in the running of the government. Remarkably, the conflict in ideological thinking has a significant bearing in the historical context as well as understanding the Bill of Rights and how its ratification gained support from the citizens.
Accordingly, Alarcon looks at the place of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and argues that it is critical for it to be included in the constitution (5). According to Alarcon, the rise in interest of the people on the Bill of Rights was as a result of the desire to have a perfect union where their freedom and liberties were kept at the highest point. Arguably, the will of the people was that the government should be able to provide a constitution that allowed them to have a sense of free will in matters relating to the government and to contribute significantly towards the formulation of the guiding principles. In the Bill of Rights, the processes, as well as the circumstances under which the president or any political leader can be impeached, are well illustrated. As such, the Anti-Federalists played a considerable part in keeping the federal government on their toes recognizing that any fraudulent behavior can kick them out of power at any given moment.
However, Kalt takes a comparative study of the U.S and the United Kingdom Bill of Rights (119). Kalt’s analysis on the two states is based on the historical perspective of individual liberty and rights of the human beings. There exists a sharp difference between their take on human freedom with the United States having the upper hand in hailing the freedom of the people than the United Kingdom. As such, the U.S is a state that guaranteed people’s aspirations of a government that would be transparent in addition to reflecting their will they had fought for during the amendment process of the Constitution. Ultimately, Kalt reflects on the influence of the people in the process of decision-making and during the impeachment of the president who may fail to live according to the rules of democracy (119). Therefore, to disregard the Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom for the government’s incapability to grant freedom to its citizens their inherent rights in the constitution (Kalt 119). As a result, people are sovereign given special freedoms which ultimately beefs up their satisfaction levels with the constitution and the government at large. Correspondingly, this is the reason why the majority of the people, including the Anti-federalists, gave their support to the amendment process of the Bill of Rights.
Ian, on the other hand, analyzes the value of the Bill of Rights on the U.S citizens based on a speech that was delivered by McEwan in 2015 about the freedom of speech and its value in the United States (245). The freedom of speech is important in the sense that it communicates crucial information to the people who the gives out their views about what they should or should not be done. As a result, media information or by individual groups has gained support from the members of the public following its tremendous input in the running of the government in ensuring that the various rights and freedoms of the people are exercised effectively (Ian 246). Therefore, the freedom of speech and its place in the United States can only be enhanced on condition that, people can actively support the motion about its ratification in the constitution.
The inclusion of the Bill or Rights in the U.S. Constitution was the reason for increased acceptability of the constitution in the public domain as well as the immense support from anti-federalism during the amendment process. There was increased struggle in ideologies from both the federal and the Anti-Federalist government on the question of the Bill of Rights inclusion in the constitution. However, it is clear that the influence of the Anti-Federalists was so strong that it attracted the interest of the public domain in the amendment process of the Bill of Rights. Significantly, the Anti-Federalists campaign was so intense that it was able to gain the support of not only the public but also from a large section of the federal government. Consequently, this gave birth to a new constitutional amendment inclusive of the Bill of Rights Charter in the Constitution. This inclusion gave the citizens a new feeling of freedom from the oppression by the previous governments. In essence, the great struggle to include the bill of rights by the people, and the anti-federalist lobby for its implementation was the reason for support for the change process. Although there is evidence of dissatisfaction, there is significant acceptance of the Constitution because the law granted the democracy that people had yearned.
Works Cited
Alarcon, Roben. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Teacher Created Materials, 2005.
Berkin, Carol. The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America’s Liberties. Simon and Schuster, 2015.
Jones, Jacqueline, et al. Created Equal: A History of the United States. 5th ed., Pearson, 2017.
Kalt, Brian C. “The People’s Forest and Levy’s Trees: Popular Sovereignty and the Origins of the Bill of Rights.” Constitutional Commentary, vol. 17, 01 Apr. 2000, p. 119. EBSCOhost. Accessed April 2017
Konvitz, Milton R. Fundamental Rights: History of a Constitutional Doctrine. Transaction Publishers, 2011.
Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Simon and Schuster, 2010.
McEwan, Ian. “Freedom of Expression Sustains All the Other Freedoms We Enjoy.” Vital Speeches of the Day, vol. 81, no. 8, Aug. 2015.
Wolfensberger, Donald R. Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2001. Accessed April, 2017.
