Anderson Triggs: Bill of Rights Introduction
My name is Anderson Triggs and I am extremely passionate when it comes to history and politics. I am a good study of US History and served in the United States Army for most of my military career. This is my take on the Bill of Rights. If you enjoy writing by Anderson Triggs, visit http://www.andersontriggs.co or http://www.andersontriggs.info.
The philosophy underpinning democracy holds that just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. This means that the ultimate authority in any justly governed country vests with the people. Free people come together to form governments for the purpose of providing common services, maintaining order and primarily for national defense.
Anderson Triggs: Our Founding Fathers
While the founding fathers recognized this principle and even outlined it in the declaration of independence, they were also aware of the fact that all people could not have their way all the time even in a democracy. Freedoms would have to be limited. That being the case, according to Anderson L. Triggs, there are certain rights that are inalienable for human beings that no just government should curtail.
Anderson L. Triggs: The History
The Constitution of the US was drafted after a congress held in Philadelphia in 1787. By all standards, according to Anderson Triggs, the document was a remarkable treatise detailing the architecture of government in a ground breaking manner. The constitution created the three arms of the government, a powerful federal executive, a legislative arm and a judiciary. It also outlined the relationship between the two levels of government. Other than establishing the three arms of government, the constitution also outlined the roles each of the arms would play.
A section of the founding fathers saw the constitution as it was drafted as dangerous. According to Anderson Triggs, it gave a lot of power to the government without demarcating limits of that power. Thus, it was clear what the government could do although not what it was prohibited from doing. The constitution was in effect silent on whether there was anything the government could not do. One section of the founding fathers, known as the anti-federalists, voiced their opposition to a strong federal government about the danger in this. They refused to ratify the constitution until amendments were made to include clauses limiting the power of government, says Anderson Triggs Florida.
The Other Side: Told By Anderson Triggs
On the other hand, the federalists felt that amendments were not necessary. They favored a strong federal government and wanted to give it absolute power. This disagreement between the two sides grew into an impasse. Breaking this impasse required intense negotiations over a period of four years.
While debate for the amendments took four years, a proposal for the Bill of Rights had been made in the first constitutional congress. On August 20, 1787, Charles Pinckney presented a proposal to guarantee certain legal rights to the people. Some of the rights presented in this proposal included freedom of the press and a prohibition of soldiers being sent to private homes. The proposals were not adopted and they were brought to the congress again on 12th September of the same year when they were debated and rejected.
Anderson Triggs & James Madison
James Madison, the principal architect of the constitution as it was then felt that inclusion of a bill of rights would be superfluous. His argument was that rights of the individual were already protected by the system of checks and balances. Check and balances prevented any one school of thought from having absolute majorities in the arms of government.
When the anti-federalists refused to ratify the constitution, the formation of the federal government was in jeopardy. The possibility of a federation of the states not being formed was not acceptable to the federalist. The standoff made it necessary for Madison and his group to agree to negotiations that would lead to a compromise on the issue.
Thomas Jefferson had not been in the first constitutional congress, says Anderson Triggs of Palm City, FL. He convinced James Madison that failure to include the bill of rights in the constitution was a mistake. Its inclusion, Jefferson argued, would make the judiciary the power to become the guardian of individual rights from the other two arms. It could be that Jefferson felt that arms led by politicians could not be trusted.
The Anderson Triggs Conclusion
According to Anderson Triggs, when Madison finally wrote the Bill of Rights he felt that having it codified would at the very least educate the public on their rights. Once the public was educated, they would be able to stand up to despotic governments if there ever arose any in the future. When the Bill of Rights was finally codified, opponents felt that it could eventually backfire since the rights of the individual were more than the ones written. This, according to them, meant that governments could go ahead and abuse all the rights not listed. This was the reason why the ninth amendment was included.
My name is Anderson Triggs of Palm City, FL and I am very passionate about history and politics. I am a veteran of the United States Army and have been in and out of combat my entire life. For more information on Anderson Triggs, you can visit http://www.andersontriggsblog.com or http://www.andersontriggs.site.