Authors Comparing Views on the Bill of Rights

¶ … authors discussing the Bill of Rights. The authors are Irving Brant and Michael J. Kryzanek, both experts in the field of political science.

The Bill of Rights did not exist when the Constitution was first written; it was a series of amendments proposed by James Madison in 1789. It now stands as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. "The Bill of Rights was ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, but the first two amendments were voted down. Failed Amendment One would have required that at least one representative be allocated in Congress for every 50,000 citizens. At that rate, Congress today would have 5,000 members. Failed Amendment Two would have required that no salary raise for members of Congress could take effect until after the next election of Congress. This proposal eventually became the Twenty-seventh Amendment"

Kryzanek 28).

Author Michael J. Kryzanek says it is "the most important step in the development of the Constitution...Most of us take the Bill of Rights for granted, but it is without question the shining star of constitutional development"

Kryzanek 20-21). The Bill of rights guarantees us our personal freedoms, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and the right to assemble.

Author Irving Brant basically agrees with Kryzanek when he says, "for when a great outcry went up that the Constitution framed in 1787 contained no Bill of Rights, the reply was made that the entire document was a charter of rights and liberties. Both in the character of the original Constitution and in its specific details, that was true to a much greater extent than alarmed citizens realized. Yet as a charter of freedom it was woefully deficient" (Brant 3). However, Brant makes a distinction that the Constitution was indeed a "charter of rights and liberties," but the founding fathers had left out some important rights of the people against governmental oppression and tyranny.

Kryzanek agrees with this definition, saying, "The Bill of Rights can be separated into two areas, guarantees of personal liberty and guarantees of judicial protection. The First Amendment is often viewed as the centerpiece of the Bill of Rights because of its broad and undefined granting of freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly. With one short statement in Amendment One, the American people were granted a bonanza of rights that have allowed them to worship their own god, express themselves with almost complete freedom, gather and report news and opinion free of government censorship, and petition government, confident that public authorities will not interfere"

Kryzanek 21).

In other words, Amendment One of the Bill of Rights is one of the most important to us as citizens, and because of that, it is one of the most debated and discussed amendments. The language is often questioned, and the meaning is often argued and analyzed in and out of court.

Brant sees the context of the words as one of the biggest problems with analyzing and understanding the First Amendment. "In the United States, on the other hand, the Constitution is fixed and definite in wording. The meaning of the words is not always plain, but that is not what causes trouble in relation to the Bill of Rights. The question in that respect more often is: shall the clear and ordinary meaning of words be followed or disregarded?"

Brant 8). He goes on to prove his point, "Let the wording of the Bill of Rights be accepted as its true meaning and every deviation from it will be recognized for what it is. There will be no need to ask, after each new appointment to the Supreme Court: what additional degree of freedom will this give to the American people or take away from them?"

Brant 71).

Kryzanek agrees, but goes one step further. He believes that one of the reasons so many people question the language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is because they have never bothered to read it. It is not a long document, and it should not take much time. "My conclusion is in the form of a simple request -- take maybe an hour of your time and sit down and read the document that has had perhaps the most profound effect on your public life. The Constitution is no steamy novel, but it is the key that unlocks the door to understanding how we have come to be Americans" (Kryzanek 17). Perhaps if everyone took the time to read this all-important document, we would have less lawsuits and cases relating to the lack of civil liberties and personal freedoms that it guarantees. As Kryzanek continues, "Because of the importance of the First Amendment to our way of life, it may be helpful to see the exact words as written by the Founders: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' Although the First Amendment clearly and concisely defines the basic personal rights of the American people, the interpretation of these rights has occupied much of the federal judiciary's time, as endless calls for applying the amendment to specific circumstances have been directed to the Court" (Kryzanek 21).

Both men understand and admire the importance of the document, not just to us as Americans, but also to the world as a whole. The Bill of Rights was not the first in the world, but it was one of the most far-reaching and democratic of them at the time. Both men see our Constitution as unique, historic, and written by great masters, who understood the intricacies of politics and our fledgling political system.