The concern that inspired the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution only stated the rights of the government. The absence of a specific declaration of individual rights and guarantees against government overreach prompted the demand for a Bill of Rights to protect the freedoms of citizens. Given the recent history of oppression under a monarchy, many people wanted strong assurances that their liberties would be safeguarded. This sentiment ultimately led to the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
- Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government — the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary.
The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration — or bill — of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The “consent of the governed” meant propertied white men only.
The absence of a “bill of rights” turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one.
In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.
What concern inspired the Bill of Rights?
The Constitution only stated the rights of the government.
Thomas Jefferson did not agree with self-government.
Most citizens could not understand the Constitution.
The Constitution gave citizens too much freedom.
23 answers
Limited Government
Early American mistrust of government power came from the colonial experience itself. Most historians believe that the pivotal event was the Stamp Act, passed by the English Parliament in 1765. Taxes were imposed on every legal and business document. Newspapers, books and pamphlets were also taxed. Even more than the taxes themselves, the Americans resented the fact that they were imposed by a distant government in which they were not represented. And they were further enraged by the ways in which the Stamp Act was enforced.
Armed with “writs of assistance” issued by Parliament, British customs inspectors entered people's homes even if they had no evidence of a Stamp Act violation, and ransacked the people's belongings in search of contraband.Contraband (noun) : things that are brought into or out of a country illegally The colonialists came to hate these “warrantless” searches and they became a rallying point for opposition to British rule.
From these experiences came a uniquely American view of power and liberty as natural enemies. The nation's founders believed that containing the government's power and protecting liberty was their most important task, and declared a new purpose for government: the protection of individual rights.
The protection of rights was not the government's only purpose. It was still expected to protect the community against foreign and domestic threats, to ensure economic growth, and to conduct foreign affairs. It was not, however, the government's job to tell people how to live their lives, what religion to believe in, or what to write about in a pamphlet or newspaper. In this sense, the idea of individual rights is the oldest and most traditional of American values.
What was unique about the American view of government?
Americans believed all taxes were an abuse of government power.
Americans believed that governments should tell people how to live.
Americans believed in protecting people by limiting government power.
Americans believed that a written constitution could not protect people.
Early American mistrust of government power came from the colonial experience itself. Most historians believe that the pivotal event was the Stamp Act, passed by the English Parliament in 1765. Taxes were imposed on every legal and business document. Newspapers, books and pamphlets were also taxed. Even more than the taxes themselves, the Americans resented the fact that they were imposed by a distant government in which they were not represented. And they were further enraged by the ways in which the Stamp Act was enforced.
Armed with “writs of assistance” issued by Parliament, British customs inspectors entered people's homes even if they had no evidence of a Stamp Act violation, and ransacked the people's belongings in search of contraband.Contraband (noun) : things that are brought into or out of a country illegally The colonialists came to hate these “warrantless” searches and they became a rallying point for opposition to British rule.
From these experiences came a uniquely American view of power and liberty as natural enemies. The nation's founders believed that containing the government's power and protecting liberty was their most important task, and declared a new purpose for government: the protection of individual rights.
The protection of rights was not the government's only purpose. It was still expected to protect the community against foreign and domestic threats, to ensure economic growth, and to conduct foreign affairs. It was not, however, the government's job to tell people how to live their lives, what religion to believe in, or what to write about in a pamphlet or newspaper. In this sense, the idea of individual rights is the oldest and most traditional of American values.
What was unique about the American view of government?
Americans believed all taxes were an abuse of government power.
Americans believed that governments should tell people how to live.
Americans believed in protecting people by limiting government power.
Americans believed that a written constitution could not protect people.
The unique aspect of the American view of government was that Americans believed in protecting people by limiting government power. This perspective stemmed from their colonial experiences, where a distant government imposed taxes without representation and enforced laws through invasive practices like warrantless searches. As a result, the founders emphasized the importance of containing government power to safeguard individual rights and liberties, viewing government power and liberty as natural enemies.
"Certain Unalienable Rights"
Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not.
Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule.
Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.
The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including:
Freedom of Religion
The right to exercise one's own religion, or no religion, free from any government influence or compulsion.
Freedom of Speech, Press, Petition, and Assembly
Even unpopular expression is protected from government suppression or censorship.
Privacy
The right to be free of unwarranted and unwanted government intrusion into one's personal and private affairs, papers, and possessions.
Due Process of Law
The right to be treated fairly by the government whenever the loss of liberty or property is at stake.
Equality Before the Law
The right to be treated equally before the law, regardless of social status.
What does liberty mean?
The freedom to follow only certain laws
Free public housing for all American citizens
Fair elections for the positions of public officials
Rights that can't be taken away by the government
Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not.
Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule.
Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.
The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including:
Freedom of Religion
The right to exercise one's own religion, or no religion, free from any government influence or compulsion.
Freedom of Speech, Press, Petition, and Assembly
Even unpopular expression is protected from government suppression or censorship.
Privacy
The right to be free of unwarranted and unwanted government intrusion into one's personal and private affairs, papers, and possessions.
Due Process of Law
The right to be treated fairly by the government whenever the loss of liberty or property is at stake.
Equality Before the Law
The right to be treated equally before the law, regardless of social status.
What does liberty mean?
The freedom to follow only certain laws
Free public housing for all American citizens
Fair elections for the positions of public officials
Rights that can't be taken away by the government
Liberty means rights that can't be taken away by the government. It refers to the idea that individuals have inherent rights that exist regardless of whether they are recognized or protected by laws or governments. In a democratic system, liberty ensures that even the majority cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of the minority or individuals.
Cases or Controversies
The judicial branch of the new government was different from the legislative and executive branches in one very important respect: the courts did not have the power to initiate action by themselves. Congress could pass laws and the President could issue executive orders, but courts could not review these actions on their own initiative. Courts had to wait until a dispute — a “case or controversy” — broke out between real people who had something to gain or lose by the outcome. And as it turned out, the people whose rights were most vulnerable to governmental abuse had least capacity to sue.
Thus, although the power of judicial review was established in 1803, more than a century would pass before the Supreme Court even had many opportunities to protect individual rights. For 130 years after ratification, the most notable thing about the Bill of Rights was its almost total lack of implementation by the courts. By the beginning of the 20th century, racial segregation was legal and pervaded all aspects of American society. Sex discrimination was firmly institutionalized and workers were arrested for labor union activities. Legal immigrants were deported for their political views, the police used physical coercion to extract confessions from criminal suspects, and members of minority religions were victims of persecution. As late as 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court had never once struck down any law or governmental action on First Amendment grounds.
The most common constitutional violations went unchallenged because the people whose rights were most often denied were precisely those members of society who were least aware of their rights and least able to afford a lawyer. They had no access to those impenetrable bulwarks of liberty — the courts. The Bill of Rights was like an engine no one knew how to start.
Why were many constitutional violations never challenged?
The Supreme Court was backed up with cases.
The Constitution protected all American citizens.
The violations committed were not serious enough.
Those impacted lacked the ability to defend themselves.
The judicial branch of the new government was different from the legislative and executive branches in one very important respect: the courts did not have the power to initiate action by themselves. Congress could pass laws and the President could issue executive orders, but courts could not review these actions on their own initiative. Courts had to wait until a dispute — a “case or controversy” — broke out between real people who had something to gain or lose by the outcome. And as it turned out, the people whose rights were most vulnerable to governmental abuse had least capacity to sue.
Thus, although the power of judicial review was established in 1803, more than a century would pass before the Supreme Court even had many opportunities to protect individual rights. For 130 years after ratification, the most notable thing about the Bill of Rights was its almost total lack of implementation by the courts. By the beginning of the 20th century, racial segregation was legal and pervaded all aspects of American society. Sex discrimination was firmly institutionalized and workers were arrested for labor union activities. Legal immigrants were deported for their political views, the police used physical coercion to extract confessions from criminal suspects, and members of minority religions were victims of persecution. As late as 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court had never once struck down any law or governmental action on First Amendment grounds.
The most common constitutional violations went unchallenged because the people whose rights were most often denied were precisely those members of society who were least aware of their rights and least able to afford a lawyer. They had no access to those impenetrable bulwarks of liberty — the courts. The Bill of Rights was like an engine no one knew how to start.
Why were many constitutional violations never challenged?
The Supreme Court was backed up with cases.
The Constitution protected all American citizens.
The violations committed were not serious enough.
Those impacted lacked the ability to defend themselves.
Many constitutional violations were never challenged because those impacted lacked the ability to defend themselves. The individuals whose rights were most often denied were often the least aware of their rights and least able to afford legal representation, which prevented them from bringing their cases to court. As a result, many violations went unchallenged and unaddressed within the judicial system.
In the Public Interest
In 1920, a small group of visionaries came together to discuss how to start the engine. Led by Roger Baldwin, a social worker and labor activist, the group included Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver, Jane Addams, Felix Frankfurter, Helen Keller and Arthur Garfield Hayes. They formed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and dedicated themselves to holding the government to the Bill of Rights' promises.
The ACLU, the NAACP, founded in 1909, and labor unions, whose very right to exist had not yet been recognized by the courts, began to challenge constitutional violations in court on behalf of those who had been previously shut out. This was the beginning of what has come to be known as public interest law. They provided the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system and Bill of Rights finally work.
Although they had few early victories, these organizations began to create a body of law that made First Amendment freedoms, privacy rights, and the principles of equality and fundamental fairness come alive. Gradually, the Bill of Rights was transformed from a “parchment barrier” to a protective wall that increasingly shielded each individual's unalienable rights from the reach of government.
Enormous progress was made between 1954 and 1973, when many rights long dormant became enforceable. Today, those achievements are being heavily challenged by a movement dedicated to rolling back the reach and effectiveness of the Bill of Rights and to undermining the independence of our courts.
The development of the Bill of Rights was a pivotal event in the long story of liberty, but it is a story that is still unfolding.
How did the ACLU and labor unions affect enforcement of the Bill of Rights?
They spoke out when guaranteed freedoms were denied.
They encouraged people to protest against the government.
They worked with the government to improve the Bill of Rights.
They fought against the decisions made by the Supreme Court.
In 1920, a small group of visionaries came together to discuss how to start the engine. Led by Roger Baldwin, a social worker and labor activist, the group included Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver, Jane Addams, Felix Frankfurter, Helen Keller and Arthur Garfield Hayes. They formed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and dedicated themselves to holding the government to the Bill of Rights' promises.
The ACLU, the NAACP, founded in 1909, and labor unions, whose very right to exist had not yet been recognized by the courts, began to challenge constitutional violations in court on behalf of those who had been previously shut out. This was the beginning of what has come to be known as public interest law. They provided the missing ingredient that made our constitutional system and Bill of Rights finally work.
Although they had few early victories, these organizations began to create a body of law that made First Amendment freedoms, privacy rights, and the principles of equality and fundamental fairness come alive. Gradually, the Bill of Rights was transformed from a “parchment barrier” to a protective wall that increasingly shielded each individual's unalienable rights from the reach of government.
Enormous progress was made between 1954 and 1973, when many rights long dormant became enforceable. Today, those achievements are being heavily challenged by a movement dedicated to rolling back the reach and effectiveness of the Bill of Rights and to undermining the independence of our courts.
The development of the Bill of Rights was a pivotal event in the long story of liberty, but it is a story that is still unfolding.
How did the ACLU and labor unions affect enforcement of the Bill of Rights?
They spoke out when guaranteed freedoms were denied.
They encouraged people to protest against the government.
They worked with the government to improve the Bill of Rights.
They fought against the decisions made by the Supreme Court.
The ACLU and labor unions affected the enforcement of the Bill of Rights by speaking out when guaranteed freedoms were denied. They actively challenged constitutional violations in court on behalf of those who had been previously shut out from doing so, thereby helping to bring the Bill of Rights to life and ensuring that individual rights were more consistently upheld and enforced.
Answer?
The correct answer is: They spoke out when guaranteed freedoms were denied. The ACLU and labor unions actively challenged constitutional violations in court and worked to ensure that the rights promised in the Bill of Rights were upheld for individuals, especially those who were previously excluded from such legal protections.
Which of the following best describes the texts main idea?
A The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights and has done so since it was first ratified
B The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights but has not always been evenly applied or enforced
C The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights but the courts have not been able to enforce any of its provisions
D the bill of rights was meant to protect indivual rights but americans decided over time that it was an unnecasary document
A The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights and has done so since it was first ratified
B The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights but has not always been evenly applied or enforced
C The bill of rights was meant to prtocect indviaul rights but the courts have not been able to enforce any of its provisions
D the bill of rights was meant to protect indivual rights but americans decided over time that it was an unnecasary document
The best description of the text's main idea is: B The Bill of Rights was meant to protect individual rights but has not always been evenly applied or enforced. The text discusses the initial lack of enforcement and implementation of the Bill of Rights, especially for marginalized groups, while highlighting the efforts of organizations like the ACLU to uphold these rights over time.
What is the meaning of the word blueprint as used by the author in paragraph 1
A a photographic print showing how something is made
B a detialed plan of how to acheive something
C a pattern or desing used by engineers
D an illustration using primarily blue ink
A a photographic print showing how something is made
B a detialed plan of how to acheive something
C a pattern or desing used by engineers
D an illustration using primarily blue ink
In the context of the author's usage in paragraph 1, the meaning of the word "blueprint" is B a detailed plan of how to achieve something. The author refers to the Constitution as a "remarkable blueprint for self-government," indicating it serves as a comprehensive and strategic plan for establishing and organizing the government.
Which detail from the text best supports the idea that the US has not yet achieved full liberty for all americans?
A "The rights that the consitutions framers wanted to protect from the government abuse were reffered to to in the declaration of indepence as unalienable rights" (Paragraph 13)
B "As late as 1920, the US supreme court had never once struck down any law or governmental action on first amendmant grounds" (Paragraph 17)
C "The developemnet of the bill of rights was a pivotal event in the long storyy of liberty but it is a story that is still unfolding" (Paragraph 23)
D "The bill of rights was in force for nearly 135 years before congress granted nTIVE americans US citizenship" (paragraph 25)
A "The rights that the consitutions framers wanted to protect from the government abuse were reffered to to in the declaration of indepence as unalienable rights" (Paragraph 13)
B "As late as 1920, the US supreme court had never once struck down any law or governmental action on first amendmant grounds" (Paragraph 17)
C "The developemnet of the bill of rights was a pivotal event in the long storyy of liberty but it is a story that is still unfolding" (Paragraph 23)
D "The bill of rights was in force for nearly 135 years before congress granted nTIVE americans US citizenship" (paragraph 25)
The detail from the text that best supports the idea that the US has not yet achieved full liberty for all Americans is D "The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship" (paragraph 25). This detail highlights that significant groups, such as Native Americans, were excluded from the rights and protections provided by the Bill of Rights for a considerable period, indicating that full liberty was not achieved for all.
Which detail from the text provides the best clue for the meaning of arbiter n paragraph 14?
A "the bill of rights established soaring princeples that gurranted the most fundamental rights in very general terms" (Paragraph 14)
B "But from the beggining, real live cases arose that raised difficult questions about how and even if the bill of rights would be applied" (Paragraph 14)
C "Before the paper rights could become actual rights someone had to interept what the lanugage of the bill of rights meant in speicifc situations" (Paragraph 14)
D "At first, the answer was unclear" (Paragraph 15)
A "the bill of rights established soaring princeples that gurranted the most fundamental rights in very general terms" (Paragraph 14)
B "But from the beggining, real live cases arose that raised difficult questions about how and even if the bill of rights would be applied" (Paragraph 14)
C "Before the paper rights could become actual rights someone had to interept what the lanugage of the bill of rights meant in speicifc situations" (Paragraph 14)
D "At first, the answer was unclear" (Paragraph 15)
The detail from the text that provides the best clue for the meaning of "arbiter" in paragraph 14 is C "Before the paper rights could become actual rights someone had to interpret what the language of the Bill of Rights meant in specific situations." This detail implies that an arbiter is someone who interprets or decides on the application of rights in particular cases, which aligns with the definition of "arbiter" as a person who settles disputes or has ultimate authority in a matter.
How does paragraph 17 contribute to the develpoment of ideas in the text?
A it demonstartes how the supreme court created racial segregation
B It clarified the Supreme courts refusal to hear any bill of rights cases
C It defines the role of the supreme court in upholidng the bill of rights
D it explains that the principles of the bill of rights were not being enforced
A it demonstartes how the supreme court created racial segregation
B It clarified the Supreme courts refusal to hear any bill of rights cases
C It defines the role of the supreme court in upholidng the bill of rights
D it explains that the principles of the bill of rights were not being enforced
Paragraph 17 contributes to the development of ideas in the text by D it explains that the principles of the Bill of Rights were not being enforced. This paragraph highlights the fact that, as late as 1920, the Supreme Court had not struck down any laws or governmental actions on First Amendment grounds, illustrating that the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights were not effectively implemented, especially during that time period. This lack of enforcement is central to the text's theme regarding the ongoing struggle for individual rights and liberties in the U.S.
What connection does the author draw between consitutional violtions and poverty
A poor people were excluded from the consituions protections by jefferson and madiso
B poor people were less likely to suffer violations of their consitutonal rights then rich people
C poor people could not aford to sue over the many consituonal violation tat affected them
D poor people could not afford an educations so they did not know when thier rights were being violated
A poor people were excluded from the consituions protections by jefferson and madiso
B poor people were less likely to suffer violations of their consitutonal rights then rich people
C poor people could not aford to sue over the many consituonal violation tat affected them
D poor people could not afford an educations so they did not know when thier rights were being violated
The connection the author draws between constitutional violations and poverty is C poor people could not afford to sue over the many constitutional violations that affected them. The text discusses how individuals whose rights were often denied were typically those who had the least capacity to take legal action or defend themselves in court due to financial constraints, which contributed to the lack of enforcement of their rights.