The Big Bat Known As The Bill Of Rights
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “For this we have Madison’s speech on the day that he introduced the Bill of Rights. Of course, he introduced the Bill of Rights because if he didn’t, Patrick Henry and George Mason and the Virginia Assembly were going to call for an Article V Amendment Convention, except they weren’t going to call for amendments. They were just going to call for an end to the then-newbie Constitution.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike
HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: . . . some people have undertaken to digitize them. For this we have Madison’s speech on the day that he introduced the Bill of Rights. Of course, he introduced the Bill of Rights because if he didn’t, Patrick Henry and George Mason and the Virginia Assembly were going to call for an Article V Amendment Convention, except they weren’t going to call for amendments. They were just going to call for an end to the then-newbie Constitution. What’s fascinating here, especially to those of you that are incorporationistas, meaning you think the Bill of Rights is a baseball bat that the federal government and federal courts can use to whack state legislatures over the head with, and to make them enforce and bring into existence and then defend certain rights and liberties. Of course, principal among this audience and other audiences on this channel is the Second Amendment. As I have tried to make at least a part of my life’s work, I’ve tried to over and over and over again prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were aimed specifically at the new general government. They had absolutely nothing to do with the states. They were not aimed at the states. The states were not target. The states were not the subject. The states and the people that lived in the states were to be protected. They were to enjoy the rights that the bill would secure, not the other way around.
In reading Madison’s – I skimmed through it. I’d already read it once before when I put together the Spirit of ’76: The Story Continues. By the way, the Patrick Henry clip from the Virginia Ratification Debate that we played at the top of the hour is available in the Spirit of ’76 on CD and DVD in the Founders Tradin’ Post and at Amazon.com. You can get that entire speech in the audio edition. It’s about ten minutes long. It’s a magnificent speech against all of the soon-to-be abuses,
Henry warning about those soon-to-come-into-fruition abuses that the new general government would, of course, pursue, and pursues again times one trillion to this day. I link to this in today’s Pile of Prep. In Madison’s presentation of the Bill of Rights, you find all the evidence that you need – it’s in here about ten, twelve times – that when he’s giving the speech and he’s introducing the Bill of Rights, telling the Congress that his constituents – what he means by that is Henry and the Virginia Assembly – have asked for safeguards to prevent abuse of power by the new general government.
If you have the time to read this, I suggest you read it. Then you will become cleansed of this ridiculous notion that the first eight amendments to the Constitution were aimed at any entity other than the federal government. You just add this little speech here to the rest of the Mount Everest of evidence that says that none of those amendments were ever to be incorporated and used against the states. No federal jury, no federal judge, no federal congress was ever supposed to be able to use it. That was the purpose of the amendments. Here’s part of what Madison said:
I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.
Mike: You can’t put it any more plain and clear, and I might add prosaic, than that. As a matter of fact, I’m going to highlight it. I’m not sure that that speech is in the Spirit of ’76: The Story Continues, but it should be if it isn’t. What else could that mean? He’s saying: Look, the guys that lost the ratifying debates are still angry. They fear this new government is going to abuse its powers. Let’s assuage them of this notion. This is as he has the Bill of Rights, fourteen amendments, in his hand. He’s introducing them into the congressional record. He’s not talking about the states. He’s not talking about the alleged universal right to bear arms on the ice world of Hoth and on Romulus and every other hell forsaken place in the universe. He’s talking about specifically the new federal government, of which he is a member of the House of Representin’. You read this over and over and over again. I’ll skip six paragraphs and get to this:
The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, [Mike: When he says government, he’s talking about the constitution government.] calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy.
It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.
Mike: Again, all of you Second Amendment incorporationistas, explain that away. There is only one possible explanation. He’s talking about North Carolina and Rhode Island. He has no authority in North Carolina and Rhode Island. They hadn’t ratified yet. In other words, he was saying: Look, why don’t we just go ahead and do these amendments and then maybe they’ll ratify? In other words, how could what he is proposing be aimed at the two states – if the Bill of Rights is universal and applies to everyone, then it would apply to the ice world of Hoth and to the abominable snow monster in the cave that gets his arm cut off in Empire Strikes Back, to the Klingons and the Romulans and everyone else. The language is plain here. You guys are afraid to join the new confederation because you think we’re going to abuse our power. We’ll pass this Bill of Rights aimed at us as a constriction against our power. Now will you join us? How much more clear and commonsensical does it have to be? [mocking] “Nah, man, that’s a universal right.” Well, if it was a universal right, soon as the Bill of Rights was ratified, and it was, even if North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified, would it have been binding on them? Why would this be held out as a carrot to get them to ratify if it was not aimed at some entity other than – if it was not intended to protect the entity that had yet to ratify? Of course, I am applying way too much logic here.
End Mike Church Show Transcript