The Bill of Rights

In the initial framework of the Federal Constitution, the need for a Bill of Rights was believed to be unnecessary because it was considered redundant. Initially, the national government was established as a limited government, one that could only exercise authority granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the People. For example, there was no need for a provision protecting freedom of speech simply because the federal government had no power limiting it whatsoever. The authority of voting for federal representatives lies with the states and not the federal government, just as no part of the Constitution justifies the conclusion that government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.

Many of the members of the Constitutional Convention believed inclusion of a bill of rights would be dangerous. They understood proposing such a measure may suggest that the federal government had powers that it had not actually been granted. A far more dangerous standpoint, especially when politicians seeking to increase the power of the federal government beyond the authority granted by the People would eventually destroy the republic as it was with ancient Rome. Currently, the federal government is seeking to take control of all federal elections, a serious invasion of state sovereignty that is protected by the Tenth Amendment, and then there is the Second Amendment. Though the Constitution gives the federal government authority over the military, it does not give any authority at all to disarm the citizenry, because the federal government does not have the authorization to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it has the consent to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Period!