Authors Comparing Views on the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

Two of the most renowned authors in American history, Amar and Levy attempt to rejuvenate Bill of Rights, by interpreting its usage for this century. While one takes a liberal view of the Bill, the other takes a very detailed interpretation of the connotation of the law prevalent at the time. Leonard W. Levy in his Origins of the Bill of Rights argues that the Bill of Rights is not only a militarized document but also it is also a document for the purpose of the ruling class. On the other hand Akhil Reed Amar in his The Bill of Rights argues that the rights of the individuals is incorporated in the Bill but it needs further interpretation for proper application.

The United States' Bill of Rights is not only an ambiguous document but its interpretation has not generated the kind of application it needs in today's world. Levy and Amar's argument and interpretation through historical evidence show this fact.

Analysis:

According to Amar's long narrative, Bill of Rights is an individualistic documentation. Veiled though the context of the Bill maybe it was designed to attract the individuals during the Civil War. As a result of the social turmoil, the founding parties like democratic and the republics designed this Bill to protect democracy. Hence, in this context the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the government itself rather then the individual liberty. On the other hand Levy's thesis has been based on the view that Bills of Rights is basically an attempt to coerce the individuals to join in with the anti-Federalist. He mentions the causes for the emergence of Bills of Rights but he does not fully address how it relates with the individuals.

Further study of the books indicates that Amer is much influenced by the notion that Bill of Rights is about self-rule. Even the government has created the Bill to protect itself; it was based on self-rule. "We the People of the United States." According to him refers to the people as a collective whole; who want to have a structural change for their own betterment. For instance the mentions the changes in the Bill of Rights before the ratified bill was presented. This he claims is because the people wanted to ensure that the Constitution was developed for the Rights of everyone. Levy on the other hand is of the opinion that, the Bill of Rights was a concoction of the anti-Federalist, who designed the Bill for States' rights and not civil rights. He thinks that the notion of people as part of the state is a myth. Although his argument is comparatively tame, Levy nevertheless touches upon the controversial issue that American Bills of Rights needs revision if it is going to be applied to the people of today.

Amar considers the various Amendments - First, Second, Eighth and declares that the amendments were militarized then it was meant for the civilians. The most important in this context in his opinion is the Second Amendment which state that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [Amar,]. According to him, the Amendments were meant for the Congress, pointing out that the provision given was aimed at the Congress' interest. However, the interest of the Congress only resonates the majority. As a result of this the people in essence were ruling themselves. But Levy is of the opinion that the Second Amendment was meant to serve another purpose. It was meant to allow people to take to arms. What this opinion mirror is the fact that Levy means to deflect the argument and provide that the Second Amendment allows armaments among civilians. Hence it is not a right at all.

Upon reading Amar's book one has the impression that the central idea of Amar's argument is based on the fact that Bills of Right was generated for the purpose of Civil War alone. It gives the privilege to the white communities, and includes private rights of individuals who have the power to influence the Bill. The provisions, according to him were incorporated so that it demonstrates a generalized idea of "personal privilege -- that is, a private right -- of individual citizens, rather than a right of states or the public at large." [Amar,]. Levy does not take such a round about argument in reaching the same conclusion but directly address the denial of rights of the people. Levy proclaims that Bills of rights was in fact the results of the demand of Congress to have a legal say in what they want to wield out of the Civil War. Levy also blames the elite for taking away the rights of the individuals to serve their own selfish political needs.