Bill of Rights vs. Constitution

James Madison’s claims against the Bill of Rights cannot be denied. He was fearful that the Bill of Rights would enable state governments to misuse people’s rights to some extent. He supported his claim by describing facts that proved state governments in fact manipulated, altered or omitted some rights at some time. James Iredell, a framer, said that declaring some rights would limit people’s access to other rights and they may even trigger people’s desire to exercise rights they are not entitled to. Madison repeatedly claimed that the Republic of the United States would never betray the interests of the general people.

However, if people’s rights had not been declared through the Bill of Rights or Amendments, the national government would have the full authority in terms of determining people’s rights. Power is a strong force. Jefferson feared that if power would lie on one side and if its limit was not clearly defined, people's rights could be twisted and turned at any time. He indicated that if obstruction or omission of people’s rights would not have occurred during Madison’s time, it could occur at a future time. So it was definitely a wise idea to secure them in writing through the Bill of Rights or amendments. Jefferson agreed that some rights were omitted or denied to people by some state governments though they were clearly declared in the Bills of Rights. But he claimed that in most instances, they played a significant role in protecting people’s majority of the rights. For that matter, the nation is so much indebted to Thomas Jefferson’s great saying “half a loaf is better than whole bread.”

The American nation must also not forget the Madison’s contribution in forming the national Constitution; a great piece of national legal guide which is the thoughtful cultivation of many wise leaders. It is not the Constitution itself; the ambiguity of some of its notions makes it questionable.

James Madison’s decision to omit the Bill of Rights to the Constitution is a controversial issue. So much can be argued and written on this subject. It can also be interpreted in many different ways. The fact that his decision did not live up till the end and some rights had to be declared through the Amendments somewhat undermines the validity of his argument. The declaration of rights after all may even lead some of us to judge his view point against the Bill of Rights to be impractical or even arbitrary.

How could Madison think that the Constitution alone would be sufficient to secure people’s rights when a bill of right along with a constitution could not guarantee people’s rights fully in some states? I assume he was referring to the uniformity, uniqueness, and quality of its contents. How about the ambiguity that lies in it? Did Madison think about that?