Jefferson And Madison Battle It Out Over U.S. Constitution And Bill Of Rights

At the end of Thomas Jefferson’s five years he spent in Paris, France working for the United States to open treaties and agreements of commerce and trade, back in the States work was being done in drafting the Constitution.

Jefferson was always adamant that the Constitution should contain a guarantee of rights to the citizens of America, that it should be spelled out clearly the freedoms guaranteed to each person. The debate on such ranged from it not being at all necessary and whether or not any “guaranteed” rights be done as amendments to the ratified Constitution or a stand alone document.

If Jefferson were alive today, he could make a fortune in consulting fees. He was the go-to guy for many when seeking advice on an array of topics. It seemed that while he was in the middle of receiving mailings from across the ocean about the drafting of a constitution, he was also consulting with many concerning the French Revolution and helping the French people to regain some of their lost freedoms.

James Madison was a protege of Jefferson’s. Jefferson thought highly of him and mentored him on many occasions throughout his life. The drafting of the Constitution was no different. But it should be said that even as close as Jefferson and Madison were, they didn’t always see eye to eye on issues, the Bill of Rights being one of them.

Don’t be confused, Madison was a firm believer in the rights of American citizens. The difference came in whether it was necessary to actually have those rights spelled out in a separate document or through amendments to the Constitution.

In March of 1789, Thomas Jefferson answered a letter sent him by James Madison about whether or not it was necessary to include a bill of rights and other concerns of the drafting of the Constitution. Some believe that in the following text of his answers, shows us some of the greatest thoughts that Jefferson had and why he felt compelled to create a Bill of Rights.

I cannot refrain from making short answers to the objections which your letter states to have been raised.

1. That the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.

Answer. A constitutive act may certainly be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes: and if it goes to all material points nothing more is wanting. In the draft of a constitution which I had once a thought of proposing in Virginia, and printed afterwards, I endeavored to reach all the great objects of public liberty, and did not mean to add a declaration of rights. Probably the object was imperfectly executed: but the deficiencies would have been supplied by others in the course of discussion. But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed, and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new federal constitution. This instrument forms us into one state as to certain objects, and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard us against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them.

2. A positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude.

Answer. Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.

3. The limited powers of the federal government and jealousy of the subordinate governments afford a security which exists in no other instance.

Answer. The first member of this seems resolvable into the 1st. objection before stated. The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text whereby they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this view it is necessary to the federal government also: as by the same text they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments.

4. Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights.

True. But though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference between the characters of the Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, and those which attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it’s useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, moderate, and reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting and irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse. The executive in our governments is not the sole, it is scarcely the principal object of my jealousy. The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come in it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.

Jefferson had witnessed first hand how without any charter or declaration of rights, the people of France had their liberties yanked out from underneath them. He feared the same for America and therefore spent a great deal of time and effort in convincing many others that the United States Bill of Rights was a necessary document.

His influence on Madison was great enough and over time it was James Madison who introduced the Bill of Rights (the first ten) into Congress as amendments to the Constitution.

Tom Remington