There is an interesting history of the Bill of Rights. Again I am not condoning the perspective I am outlining here, I and just trying to explain why it might have been published like that.
The Bill of Rights was adopted as a single unit in 1791 (up to the first 10 amendments).
The definition of the Bill of Rights had been concisely set out by Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers and a supporter and activist for the Bill of Rights, as: “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
The idea was that these are “GOD” given rights to people even AGAINST the government. Hence it explains why it is attached to the Bible.
At the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, there were heated debates between federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the group of people who believed in a strong national government which would have power over the states. They were of the opinion that the federal government would be able to protect them against the British and European powers as well as against the arbitrariness and whimsicalities of the state government. Some of the best-known leaders such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists included Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry who believed in strong local government and that the states should have most of the power. Most Americans, who had lived through the Revolutionary War, were Anti-Federalists. The Bill of Rights is often considered the ‘product’ of the American Revolution.
AKA Bill of rights was see as a document for “states’ rights”
There was a massive heated debate for this bill to be included in the US constitution which at that time was a document based of Federalist papers. Pro inclusion people (anti federalists) wanted a guarantee of these rights and protection from even the government. While anti inclusion people (federalists) said it wasn’t necessary because the democratic process would guarantee the rights anyway. (LOL)
This is actually the core of the institution of government in America - is it a constitutional republic or a democracy.
Democracy as discussed in this issue, was merely majority rule by people who were allowed to vote. At this time I believe it was white men of a certain age who passed a religious test and owned property.
While a constitutional republic guaranteed certain rights even AGAINST the will of the majority or even the government.
Constitution is the check on the majority ( nd the government) infringing on the rights of the minority. So technically, women’s right to vote and civil rights wouldn’t be possible without the Constitution.
