<a href="https://reason.com/2025/08/14/was-the-bill-of-rights-a-bad-idea-some-founding-fathers-thought-so/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
The debate over the Bill of Rights is like a political family feud that’s been simmering for centuries. When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, it was done without a Bill of Rights, and some framers were worried it would leave room for government overreach. Take James Iredell, who famously warned that listing specific rights in the Constitution could imply that unlisted rights were fair game for infringement. In other words, he feared that if it wasn’t written down, it could be taken away!
On the flip side, Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson threw their hands up, insisting that knowing what rights we have is essential to protecting them. Jefferson’s list of essentials was impressive, covering everything from freedom of religion to habeas corpus, showing that he’d definitely get the “most likely to be organized” award if he were in high school! Eventually, James Madison listened to these concerns and proposed a Bill of Rights, but he was also wary about the implications of specifically enumerating rights. His solution? The Ninth Amendment—a bit of clever wordplay that states that just because certain rights aren’t mentioned doesn’t mean they aren’t protected.
This debate continues to have relevance today: although some rights are protected, others seem to be left out in the cold. It’s like having a family dinner where the kids’ table is a bit… let’s say, under-represented. So, what do you think? Should we be concerned about our unenumerated rights, or is the Bill of Rights enough to keep us safe from government intrusion? Let’s hash it out in the comments!
About the Author
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!
