On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:47:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The "Bill of Rights" (not an original American creation, by the way)
was added only after the 1787 convention had once tried to get the
document ratified. It wasn't a particularly anti-federalist action,
but simply an acknowledgement that while the Constitution spelled out
what the government "can" do, the people demanded guarantees of what
the government "can't" do.

More than that, agreement on the Constitution was actually predicated
on the promise that the Bill of Rights would immediately follow.

I don't remember why it wasn't included in the main document. It could
have been something as simple as wanting to keep the Constitution
streamlined, or as devious as a worry that all 13 former colonies
might not ratify it with the Bill included. Nor do I remember how the
Bill was ratified. If it went to the states (as they now were), the
second possibility can be ruled out.

To carry on the civics lesson: the Constitution went into effect when
nine states had ratified it; New Hampshire was the 9th state to do so.
Vermont was not one of the 13 colonies, nor one of the 13 states who
are memorialized as the stripes on the American flag. When Vermont
joined the Union, the tradition was already underway that the United
States would expand virtually without limit.

All the press goes to the Declaration of Independence and the war of
revolution that followed it, but the Constitution was the document
that changed the world. Just about every nation, at one time or
another, has declared independence and/or fought a revolution, but
what other created a document for self-government that lasted more
than 200 years?

In my opinion, even the 3/5 provision ought to be there, enshrined
forever, so we'll never forget that the document wasn't perfect to
begin with, but is being perfected over time.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com