John Whitehead's Commentary
Those Sacred But Endangered 462 Words
462 words. To those who value freedom, they are the most important words in the English language--words that approach sacredness and constitute the only remaining barrier against an ever--encroaching government. These 462 words make up the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
These unequivocal declarations of human rights may not be the most eloquent ever written, but they contain the most potent and powerful rights ever guaranteed to a group of people. The First Amendment, for instance, guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech and the press and the right of peaceful assembly and petition. Included among the guarantees in the other nine amendments are the right of the people to form a "well-regulated militia," the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property, fair treatment for those accused of crimes, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, a speedy and impartial trial, representation by counsel and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. Together, these ten amendments--referred to collectively as the Bill of Rights--provide what has come to be considered as the blueprint for human freedom worldwide.
When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution, he may not have conceived of how important they would become to a young America. But George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, strong advocates of such a list of rights, surely understood. Jefferson, for one, feared what we see happening today-that the expanding scope of the federal government and its agencies would jeopardize individual freedom. As Jefferson wrote to Madison, the Bill of Rights would "guard against their abuse of power."
Much water has passed under the bridge since those 462 words became an integral part of the American legal and political fabric. The Supreme Court has decided many cases invoking the Bill of Rights, sometimes affirming and sometimes limiting the freedoms found therein. Yet no matter how disturbing the rulings in some of the court cases have been, even more troubling are certain recent developments regarding our liberties.
The first is the massive intrusion on our civil liberties since 9/11, ranging from the USA Patriot Act, which allows the government to sidestep virtually every protection in the Bill of Rights and turn our country into a Peeping Tom society, to the American government detaining and interrogating citizens without allowing them to see an attorney to the ever-increasing role of the military in domestic affairs--all of which would have made the likes of Madison and other sons of liberty cringe.
The second and more worrisome development is the response of the American people to the government's expanding scope of power over its citizens. Indeed, in a recent survey, about half (49%) of those surveyed said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Much of this may be due to ignorance for, as the survey found, most Americans cannot name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment--only 14% named freedom of the press and just 2% could name the freedom of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm afraid that the same can be said about many of the politicians who head our government. Although our leaders take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and "domestic," often they are the enemy of the Bill of Rights. Again, much of this has to do with ignorance--a lack of education about our fundamental rights. For example, even President Bush has publicly admitted his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, using the excuse that he is not a lawyer. However, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--and should be held accountable to upholding its precepts. Indeed, maybe it's time to consider whether or not those taking office should be required to take a course on the Constitution before they are seated.
Fault for this lack of constitutional savvy lies with our educational system as well. When high school seniors were tested several years ago, just one in four could come up with two ways the American political system prevents the exercise of "absolute arbitrary power" on the part of the government. Among the possible answers on a multiple choice test were such basics as the Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military and the right to vote. Not one in ten seniors could identify two ways that democracy benefits from the active participation of its citizens. And in a 1998 poll conducted by the National Constitution Center, not one in 50 American teenagers could identify James Madison as the father of the U.S. Constitution. Less than half could name the three branches of the federal government.
Just as troublesome is a study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. It found that while educators seem to support First Amendment rights in principle, they are reluctant to apply such rights in the schools. For example, they support severe restrictions on freedom by forbidding student distribution of political and religious materials, thus endorsing a hypocritical double standard where belief and action collide. This is nowhere better illustrated than in draconian zero tolerance policies that expel children from school for innocent acts and speech without a hearing and regardless of circumstances. This obviously creates confusion for students when it comes time to learn about the Bill of Rights.
Unless we take heed now, those precious 462 words of freedom will be swallowed up in the mire of ignorance, misunderstanding and apathy that seems to hold our nation captive. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who believed that active involvement from an informed citizenry was essential to maintaining a democratic government, wrote: "Those who won our independence believed that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people, that public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American Government."
As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention trudged out of Independence Hall on September 17, 1787, an anxious woman in the crowd waiting at the entrance inquired of Benjamin Franklin, "Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," Franklin replied, "if we can keep it."
Can we keep it? Only we can answer that question. The future is in our hands.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
These unequivocal declarations of human rights may not be the most eloquent ever written, but they contain the most potent and powerful rights ever guaranteed to a group of people. The First Amendment, for instance, guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech and the press and the right of peaceful assembly and petition. Included among the guarantees in the other nine amendments are the right of the people to form a "well-regulated militia," the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property, fair treatment for those accused of crimes, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, a speedy and impartial trial, representation by counsel and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. Together, these ten amendments--referred to collectively as the Bill of Rights--provide what has come to be considered as the blueprint for human freedom worldwide.
When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution, he may not have conceived of how important they would become to a young America. But George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, strong advocates of such a list of rights, surely understood. Jefferson, for one, feared what we see happening today-that the expanding scope of the federal government and its agencies would jeopardize individual freedom. As Jefferson wrote to Madison, the Bill of Rights would "guard against their abuse of power."
Much water has passed under the bridge since those 462 words became an integral part of the American legal and political fabric. The Supreme Court has decided many cases invoking the Bill of Rights, sometimes affirming and sometimes limiting the freedoms found therein. Yet no matter how disturbing the rulings in some of the court cases have been, even more troubling are certain recent developments regarding our liberties.
The first is the massive intrusion on our civil liberties since 9/11, ranging from the USA Patriot Act, which allows the government to sidestep virtually every protection in the Bill of Rights and turn our country into a Peeping Tom society, to the American government detaining and interrogating citizens without allowing them to see an attorney to the ever-increasing role of the military in domestic affairs--all of which would have made the likes of Madison and other sons of liberty cringe.
The second and more worrisome development is the response of the American people to the government's expanding scope of power over its citizens. Indeed, in a recent survey, about half (49%) of those surveyed said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Much of this may be due to ignorance for, as the survey found, most Americans cannot name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment--only 14% named freedom of the press and just 2% could name the freedom of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm afraid that the same can be said about many of the politicians who head our government. Although our leaders take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and "domestic," often they are the enemy of the Bill of Rights. Again, much of this has to do with ignorance--a lack of education about our fundamental rights. For example, even President Bush has publicly admitted his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, using the excuse that he is not a lawyer. However, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--and should be held accountable to upholding its precepts. Indeed, maybe it's time to consider whether or not those taking office should be required to take a course on the Constitution before they are seated.
Fault for this lack of constitutional savvy lies with our educational system as well. When high school seniors were tested several years ago, just one in four could come up with two ways the American political system prevents the exercise of "absolute arbitrary power" on the part of the government. Among the possible answers on a multiple choice test were such basics as the Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military and the right to vote. Not one in ten seniors could identify two ways that democracy benefits from the active participation of its citizens. And in a 1998 poll conducted by the National Constitution Center, not one in 50 American teenagers could identify James Madison as the father of the U.S. Constitution. Less than half could name the three branches of the federal government.
Just as troublesome is a study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. It found that while educators seem to support First Amendment rights in principle, they are reluctant to apply such rights in the schools. For example, they support severe restrictions on freedom by forbidding student distribution of political and religious materials, thus endorsing a hypocritical double standard where belief and action collide. This is nowhere better illustrated than in draconian zero tolerance policies that expel children from school for innocent acts and speech without a hearing and regardless of circumstances. This obviously creates confusion for students when it comes time to learn about the Bill of Rights.
Unless we take heed now, those precious 462 words of freedom will be swallowed up in the mire of ignorance, misunderstanding and apathy that seems to hold our nation captive. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who believed that active involvement from an informed citizenry was essential to maintaining a democratic government, wrote: "Those who won our independence believed that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people, that public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American Government."
As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention trudged out of Independence Hall on September 17, 1787, an anxious woman in the crowd waiting at the entrance inquired of Benjamin Franklin, "Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," Franklin replied, "if we can keep it."
Can we keep it? Only we can answer that question. The future is in our hands.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
