by Harry Browne
This article was originally published on December 12, 2002. For more Harry Browne archives, visit www.harrybrowne.org
Dec. 15 should be a national holiday.
No, it’s not Earth Day, or Martin Luther King Day, or Flag Day, or Beat-Up-Some-Third-World-Country Day.
It’s Bill of Rights Day.
If there were to be only one holiday in America, that should be it. Contrary to all the blather we hear about the unique goodness of the American people or our religious heritage or anything else, the one thing that set this country apart from all others was the Bill of Rights.
This was the first country in history to have a national government that was truly limited. No, the limits weren’t always observed, but for a century they held the federal government more in check than any government in history. At the end of the 19th century, federal, state and local taxes still took only 8 percent of the national income (it’s 48 percent today).
Children know nothing of their heritage
Unfortunately, our children grow up with no concept of limited government. All they learn in school is that the government is the wondrous savior that brought us out of the Great Depression, made the world safe for democracy, holds human greed in check, and stops rapacious corporations from polluting the environment.
They don’t understand that the one unique factor government possesses is force, and that only a strict Constitution can keep that force from getting out of hand. When they study the Constitution, they pore over tedious sections explaining the makeup of the Senate and the House, how judges are selected, and how federal laws are enacted. Needless to say, they aren’t taught the concept and virtue of limited government.
The meaning of the Constitution
And so they don’t understand that the Bill of Rights is the heart of the Constitution – the section that gives meaning to it by holding the government in check. Those 10 amendments say:
The Constitution isn’t written in Chinese, Swahili or Sanskrit. It’s in plain English. And the first question a president should ask any potential Supreme Court judge is, “Can you read?”
If the judges could read and pay attention to what they read:
Bring back America
The Bill of Rights isn’t some legalistic fine print. It was written to make our lives freer, more prosperous, and happier. By forsaking it, America has become no better than any other country in the world.
Today every conceivable subject is fair game for legislation to enforce the personal whims of people like Bill Clinton, George Bush and those 535 drunken sailors in Washington.
No, we won’t have a national celebration this Bill of Rights Day. But we can privately contemplate what we’ve lost – and vow to restore the America that was meant to be.
Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Bill Hawthorne. Bill Hawthorne said: TenthAmendment: A Day to Remember: Bill of Rights Day http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/a-day-to-remember-bill-of-rights-day/ [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Reddit by twoblueday: I dispute that we, as a nation, have “forsaken” the bill of rights. Whether some restrictions on the freedoms enunciated in it have been wrongly implemented is a political debate which rages on….
Harry's insights are timeless – I couldn't think of a better perspective to have for Bill of Rights Day….
The best comment on this, from a user on Facebook: "the question is can any poltician read?"
Yup, but they hope YOU can't!
I like how the author breaks the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Even young school children can understand it when it's explained like that. More and more, I feel like the things my teachers have taught me in history classes were untrue; and honestly, that kind of scares me.
Great point, Chris. It’s essential to communicate the message of the constitution and liberty in a way that easy to understand. Few in modern history have been better at this than Browne. If you’re interested in some further reading, look up his book, Liberty A-Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now.
I really don't like the bill of rights but not because I hate rights but because the idea behind them is that they are the source of my rights. I ask one question for every school child and that is if the bill or rights did not exist would your rights cease to exists with them and if this is true then why do you have the right to do other things that are not included in the bill of rights since there is not separate amendment for them. The truth is is that we don't need a bill of rights but remember that the federal government can't do anything that takes away any of your freedoms that exist outside of the enumerated powers section.
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/15/a-day-to-remember/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
I have to say the need to declare war would only have prompted congress to declare war rather then authorize the president to make war.
Perhaps thou it may be said that to get congress to declare war in all such cases would reduce the number of cases in which war was actually declared and thus actually engaged in, by means of the procedure being more politically significant.
This is admittedly both a good and bad thing, good in that war should be a significant thing given the fact that lives will almost surely be lost, therefore war can not be said to be any less significant an act then that of life.
It is a bad thing in that it will reduce the capability of presidents to dynamically and freely act to micro manage the military situation thou out the world such as in Grenada. One thing that can be said with out a doubt: congress moves slowly.
One thing we should however carefully consister here is an amendment to the constitution on the separate grounds of ballade budget with the 1 exception being military expenditures in time of declared war. Such a spesfic exception would serve to encourage congress to go out of their way to actually declare ware formally. While practically making it more difficult for the president to simply order troops into combat with out money to pay for such a deployment.
As congress is significantly less likely to want to allocate extra money to give the president "play money" in which to uses the military in such a way when they actually have to maintain a ballade budget in paying for everything else they want.
So might I suggest that this problem can be greatly reduced at the same time we deal with the general budget problem.
Monorprise – interesting feedback as always. Thank you! I think the point Browne was trying to make on declaring war is very close to the beginning of your comment – that it would happen far less often if Congress formally declared and actually took responsibility. I would also argue that when they did it that way, there would be a far greater chance of success too.
On issues like Grenada – the founders set up the system this way so presidents would NOT have that kind of flexibility. And, in an emergency, such as Pearl Harbor, we can see congress declaring war in what, a day? That should not be a concern. If Congress could respond within 24 hours (less, actually) in 1941, they can do the same today.
Finally, if the people do not want to spend their money or their lives on war, conflict or intervention, why should the president be able to dictate that to the people anyway? Obviously, fending off an attack is a different story.
Hi,
Very informative.Federalism was a bad deal for minorities and important things like education, health care, housing, etc should be handled at the federal level regardless of what the Constitution requires.
Actually, Huiles, can you specifically reference how the Federalism (which isn’t what we have – Representative Republic) is a bad deal for minorities? I’m assuming you mean the US Constitution since you were unclear in your post.
In reference to the Constitution it mentions no limitations on minorities rights…
As for education, health care, housing, how exactly should that be handled at the federal level? Everyone should have a house? Who decides what kind of house? How do we determine what necessitates need in that regards? The same question is posed to your comments about education and health care.
The Constitution of the US specifically gives the Federal Government basic guidelines where it can intervene, and unfortunately our current incarnation of government, starting with Woodrow Wilson, has destroyed that parchment little by little and has left us with what we have now.
1) Individual Rights
2) States Rights
3) Federal Rights
IN that order.
Thank God for the Bill of Rights, because quite frankly, we would have seen the Federal Government even overstep into those rights. They try more and more every year.