The bedrock defense of American liberties is the Bill of the Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. After the Revolution most powers were wielded by states; seven of the thirteen included a bill of rights to protect the freedom of their citizens. Indeed, Britain had adopted a Bill of Rights in 1689 as part of the Glorious Revolution, when William of Orange supplanted James II as king. Although criticism of the Articles of Confederation were widespread, Americans, having escaped British rule only through a bloody war, understandably feared creation of another powerful national government. Many people viewed the proposed new constitution with skepticism. In fact, the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Interpreted correctly, it protects liberty by providing the national authorities with only limited authority. Alexander Hamilton wrote during the ratification fight: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations." He and James Madison warned against adding specific guarantees since doing so would suggest that other liberties were unprotected. However, history provided many examples of governments usurping power. Opponents worried--correctly, as it turns out--that the same phenomenon would occur in America. Anti-Federalist Robert Yates "Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights?" George Mason, who authored Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, said he wished the Constitution "had been prefaced with a bill of rights." Thomas Jefferson, who was not at the Constitutional Convention, wrote Madison, arguing that "a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government." Opposition to the Constitution was vigorous. In order to win votes for ratification supporters of the Constitution agreed to add a bill of rights to the document, once it was approved. The state ratification conventions proposed more than 200 amendments. Madison, as a member of the new Congress, developed a tenth as many proposals. Congress sent a dozen to the states for ratification, which approved ten of them. (The two that failed involved congressional apportionment and compensation. The latter was finally ratified in 1992 and is now the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.) The Bill of Rights obviously applied to the federal government--indeed, the First Amendment specifically restricted Congress. In the early years of the American republic, when the national government remained small, the Bill of Rights was seldom applied. However, the ratification of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War led to the eventual "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights," that is, the application of most of the restrictions to state governments as well. The amendments vary in importance, both in terms of the rights protected and the attention received. However, attempting to pick and choose among them risks them all. There is no reason to assume--and, indeed, much evidence to the contrary--that the nation's founders cared passionately about free speech but viewed gun ownership with indifference. They were determined to set restrictive rules for criminal trials and property seizures. Undermining the relevance of one inevitably undercuts the others. As an overall package, the Bill of Rights offers impressive protection for individual liberty. Unfortunatelyl, as interpreted by the courts, many of the guarantees have proved to be less secure in practice. Nevertheless, they should be seen as reinforcing an underlying constitutional scheme which envisioned an ocean of personal freedoms surrounding islands of government power. The Bill of Rights was intended to build fences around those islands. Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Although ranking liberties by importance is fraught with risk, surely the freedom of conscience represents the pinnacle. If so, then the First Amendment is first in preserving not just the liberties of individuals, but also the very foundation of a free society. Much is packed within the First Amendment. Religious liberty comes first--pretecting those who desire to worship and preventing the state from dictating to people how to worship. Next comes freedom of speech and all that naturally extends from that liberty, such as assembly and petition. Not all early Americans were pleased with the vigorous and often vitriolic media of the time. Only a few years after the nation was formed the U.S. Congress approved the Sedition Act, which seemed to clearly conflict with the Amendment. And the Court has never given full effect to the notion that "no law" was allowable. Nevertheless, most citizens not only believed in but engaged in political debate. Thomas Jefferson was overstating only a little when he opined: "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Total freedom is impossible in a world populated by evil men and dangerous states, but every restriction must be carefully weighed. Without strong guarantees for freedom of conscience--to practice religion and engage in political debate--America would not long remain the sort of free society worth defending. Amendment II. 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. Gun regulation is one of today's most controverted issues. The jurisprudence regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost as controversial. Nevertheless, given the emphasis on private firearm ownership at the time, it seems clear that the provision's framers intended to create some security for private ownership against government infringement. Although the text provides as a rationale the role of the militia, as written the Second Amendment does not limit the right to militia service. A people so fearful of their liberties that they took up arms to oust the relatively mild "despotism" of Great Britain were not likely to create a government which could take away the very means of resistance. Indeed, shortly after the Constitutional Convention completed its work, Thomas Jefferson penned the letter in which he famously observed: "What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." While not all Americans shared his belief that rebellion was desirable, most believed in preserving the means of resisting unjust dictates. Article III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. In practice, the Third Amendment is largely irrelevant to government practice today. It has only once been cited once by a federal court, and that in 1982 in a curious case involving the use of National Guardsmen as prison guards during a strike. The development of a professional national military, with numerous bases and other installations, as well as decline of conflict within the United States, has made this issue moot. Nevertheless, at the time the Constitution was written the experience of Great Britain forcibly quartering soldiers in the homes of civilians was very much on the mind of Americans. They were determined not to allow any repetition of the practice. Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searchers and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment grew out of the British practice of granting general "writs of assistance," or search warrants, when probable clause was lacking. The case law interpreting this provision has grown quite complex, given the plethora of life situations as well as technological transformations that have occurred over the years. Nevertheless, it remains a bedrock guarantee of protection against intrusive government. Some of the most pressing political issues today, ranging from electonic surveillance to drug enforcement, are integrally related to the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Early Americans emphasized process, since justice was predicated on fair process. There was no predetermined outcome; the results were largely judged by whether the process of achieving them emphasized objectivity, rules, and transparency. The Fifth Amendment applies such procedural safeguards to both criminal and procedural matters. More detail is provided for the former, since people's lives and liberty are at stake. Nevertheless, the right to property too is safeguarded, particularly in the case of eminent domain. Wrapping them all together is the requirement of "due process of law" before depriving anyone of "life, liberty, or property." (The Fourteenth Amendment contains a similarly worded clause explicitly applying to the states.) Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, and which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for this defense. This provision is directed against the infamous "Star Chamber," an arbitrary royal tribunal that offered no procedural safeguards and employed torture, and any similar form of criminal panel. Although the former was outlawed by the famous "Long Parliament," Americans wanted to ensure that it, or anything like it, never made an appearance in the New World. The Sixth Amendment sets transparent and fair procedures for any criminal proceeding. Article VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwised re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The Seventh Amendment responded to British practices involving the use of juries and right of judges to overturn jury verdicts. The American colonists jealously protected their right to a jury trial, which they viewed as a barrier against tyranny. This provision prevented the national government from dismantling what was seen as a protection for both justice and liberty. Article VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In Great Britain the king and his sheriffs and judges had routinely abused their power to limit the release of prisoners. Early Americans wished to deny their officials a similar opportunity for abuse. Most case law involving the Eighth Amendment involves the cruel and unusual clause. Although its exact application has occasioned much disagreement, its supporters viewed it as an important limit on the arbitrariness and brutality that governments often had exhibited. Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Although Robert Bork termed the Ninth Amendment an "inkblot," it, along with the Tenth Amendment, played an important role in the minds of those who created the original constitutional scheme. For the Ninth Amendment, in particular, was meant to ensure that no one interpreted the first eight as providing a full listing of constitutionally protected rights. There were others, many others. Indeed, in introducing the amendments James Madison explained: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible argments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see." Article X. 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. Although this article has received little jurisprudential respect, it was intended to protect the authority of states as well as liberty of citizens from excessive federal pretensions. It also reinforced the basic structure of the national government, one of specific, enumerated powers. Powers not expressly authorized to be exercised by Washington remained with states or the people.