Defending Our Civil Liberties

Over two hundred years after ratification, people have still qualms with the Bill of Rights. We cling to those amendments and rights that we feel apply to our sensibilities and us and reject and criticize those that do not. We pick and chose which parts we can use to back up our own arguments and our opposition does the same. Those who advocate the integration of religion into the classroom say it is a matter of free speech while those who fight to keep God out of our classrooms say it infringes upon the freedom of religion (or the implied freedom to not be religious). Citizens who own guns claim it is their constitutional right to do so, while people who advocate stronger gun control laws claim that the Second Amendment has no modern application as we no longer maintain a “well regulated Militia” that is “necessary to the security of a free State.” The ultimate irony here is that without a Bill of Rights we’d have no guaranteed right to debate our guaranteed rights.

James Madison felt that the safeguard of individual liberty must lie with the people. He wrote, on the security of liberty, “ . . . whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution, respecting it must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” He and others saw the Bill of Rights as a tool that could promote understanding and awareness of the rights of citizens and thus enable them to protect those liberties. The Bill of Rights gives us endless justification through different interpretations (and the implied right the interpret) to feel and think the way that we want to, to judge for ourselves what our rights should be and for every citizen to advocate change as they see fit.

Many groups of people have embarked, as of late, on crusades to limit the rights of fellow citizens (pro-life/anti-abortion groups and those against gay marriage, for example) because they do not agree with decisions that may be made my others. To get caught up with change that limits the rights of others though would be a mistake. Movements to further amend the Constitution in ways that may negate previous amendments or are written to take away rights (even those not explicitly granted anywhere) are dangerous to the overall integrity of the amendment process and thus to all the rights that are already secured. With the increasing size of our government, we should stand together and our attention should move to preserving the Bill of Rights to protect and expand our civil liberties. The loss of any amendment, despite any personal feelings about it, could lead to the loss of another. Getting rid of an amendment that you don’t agree with or pushing for an amendment that limits someone else may lead to that someone else doing the same in return.

Focus for any change should be in the affirmative, not the negative. We should be trying to expand our personal liberties not hinder the rights of others. We should be asking: "what can I get?" not "what can I take away?" The ultimate question about the Bill of Rights is this: Though it is your right to disagree, speak freely, petition or assemble and therefore make motions for change, which is more important: all the rights that you are entitled to or restricting the rights of others who may, in turn, retaliate?