Missourian
Diamond Member
The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.
I have come across the premise before that the Constitution does not grant rights, I disagree with that. Simply because the word GRANT or a synonym is not used, some say it is not a grant to the people.
WHY was it called the Bill of RIGHTS? If it did not grant rights to not be abridged, then it should have been called the Bill of Prohibitions, as Hamilton suggested.
I am not a law buff, but I'm not sure I agree with that.
IMO the rights themselves exist independently and predate the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights protects those rights from government restriction.
The rights exist outside the Constitution and would exist without the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights no more created the rights themselves than Newton's First Law of Motion created inertia.
Instead, the Bill of Rights, like Newton's Laws of Motion, codifies...not creates.
Last edited: