What would it be like without the constitution?

Answer 1

Life without the Bill of Rights would be hard to believe. Currently, there is an attempted genocide taking place in Iraq; one group is doing whatever they please with and to another. It is likely that life without the legal protection of the Bill of Rights would look very much like that.

Answer 2

The Bill of Rights was introduced to the First United States Congress in 1787 as constitutional amendments and went into effect, after being ratified by three fourths of the States, on December 15, 1791 just a little under four years after the Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and it was the Federalists who pushed for the newly adopted Constitution arguing that the Articles of Confederation were too weak. Almost immediately after the newly formed Federalists began their appeal to adopt a new constitution, there arose an opposition party of Anti-Federalists who feared a strong central government and a strong executive in the President of whom the Anti-Federalists argued could use this power to become king.

In many ways it was the Anti-Federalists or those who sympathized with them and opposed the idea of rejecting the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution that granted more authority to a federal government, who made popular the notion of a "Bill of Rights". The Anti-Federalists were, among many things, individualists and feared this new constitution was a threat to the rights of the individual. In every State across the union there was strong opposition to the constitution and North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last two states to ratify this new Constitution and did so because all other States had done so and there not signing had now become a dangerous liability. The opposition of Federalism was so strong in Rhode Island that an armed protest on July 4, 1788 pushed this newly independent nation to the brink of civil war.

After a bitter and long debate during the convention in Massachusetts, where the Massachusetts compromise was forged, it was clear that this nation would adopt a Federalist form of government. Massachusetts had, however, along with ratification, recommended provisions in the ratifying instrument that the Constitution be ratified with a Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, who at the time was serving as Ambassador in France wrote James Madison advocating a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton, however, had written an eloquent argument against a Bill of Rights in Federalist number 84, arguing that such amendments were not necessary and reminding us that bill of rights in their origin, are stipulations between king and his subjects and as such was inappropriate for the Constitution. He also argued that such amendments were dangerous because they prohibited the government to do that which they had no power granted to do, and this unnecessary prohibition could lead to a reasonable legal claim by the government claiming more than was granted simply because an amendment sought to prohibit that power.

Hamilton and other Federalists believed that by adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution the risk of rights being limited to those listed was too great. The Anti-Federalists arguments were that the Constitution all ready engaged in prohibitions of power to the government and restricted Congress ability to suspend the Writ of Hebeas Corpus, unless in time of rebellion, and expressly prohibited any passage of a bill of attainder or ex post facto laws and forbade any title of nobility be granted by the United States. The argument made was that these prohibitions were mentioned in the Constitution precisely because these powers are implied by the powers granted the government. It was further argued that the prohibitions made by a bill of rights guard against the abuse of power, either through implication or inference or powers actually contained in the Constitution.

What does all of that have to do with how life might look today if we didn't have a bill of rights? Let's take a look around, shall we? First, there is the President of the United States who for several Presidents now and a number of years has been called the "leader of the free world" and "the most powerful man in the free world." The current President, George W. Bush is openly referred to by many people in the United States as King George because of the zealous nature in which he suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus, defies the rights of the individual and seeks to make an even stronger Federal government. The Congress has manged to wriggle free from Constitutional constraints and prohibitions of power by the creation of administrative agencies that presume jurisdiction not granted by any law or the Constitution and gain that jurisdiction by the tacit approval and many times the willing and voluntary granting of jurisdiction by the people. The Supreme Court agreed with the Anti-Federalists assertion that powers were implied by the Constitution mightily so, and with the landmark case Marbury v. Madison found the power to strike down legislation abhorrent to the Constitution. "You have the right to remain silent..." is a piece of prose written not by Congress but by a Supreme Court Justice! Police and even the Sheriff, regularly coral people who protest into "free speech zones", Judges regularly demand parents medicate their children, or surrender their children to the state and the right to drive has been deemed a privilege granted by governments, the right to labor and bear the fruits of that labor has been declared taxable income, the right to exercise and worship ones own religion freely is heavily regulated by a tax collection agency and the churches themselves believe they can not legally marry two people unless those two people have first obtained a marriage license. As if people needed permission to get married. Freedom of speech is regulated by the FCC, monitored by the FBI, CIA, DEA, FTA and Homeland Security. The right to keep and bear arms ridiculously regulated and arms regularly banned by some statutory scheme. Warrant-less searches, unlawful seizing of private property and effects, and the denial of due process of law are all abuses regularly practiced by all three branches of the government and all of this is with The Bill of Rights securely in place.

Would it be worse if there never was a Bill of Rights or could it possibly be better? Is it possible that if there were no Bill of Rights that the people today might actually know their rights? It is unbelievable how many people don't know or can't list the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is that because they are taken for granted? If there were no rights listed to take for granted would we as people be more acutely aware of our rights? How many times have you heard some Congressman or a President or some other government official talk about what rights the Constitution does and does not grant? Isn't everyone acutely aware of the fact of law that rights are not granted but preexist the government formed to protect those rights? It is next to impossible to know how life might be different today if there were no Bill of Rights written then, but it is very possible to know that what was written then barely gets any attention now. What does it matter that there is a bill of rights if everyone agrees that those rights were granted to us by our government of whom we serve. When we as a people return to the notion that the government serves us and not the other way around then perhaps the Bill of Rights might matter more. Today, they stand as a quaint argument for individual liberty now long discarded in favor of civil rights and civil liberties and minority rights and the rights of the collective.

Answer 3

What would happen? Basically what is happening in countries where individual rights are being violated....to name only a few situations: not able to speak your mind or write/publish your opinions without dire consequences, not be entitled to protection from discrimination in the workplace or any other public facility/activity, not be able to worship unharassed in whatever religion you choose, loss of a fair trial/and representation if you are accused of a crime, loss of humane sentence and treatment during that sentence if you are convicted, good possibility that what you own (or think you own) can be removed from you without recourse...

Answer 4

There have been very lengthy books written, and movies produced about this (in movies it was normally just 1 right).

George Orwell wrote a book that attempted, even if unintentionally, to look at the development of society without a bill of rights. In this book (and its movie), Nineteen Eighty Four (1984); people basically have no rights of any type and are treated as slaves, only allowed to live by the whim of the government. This of course just represents one persons view of "how things might have been, if" and it could be much worse, or much better (although history shows the latter to be highly unlikely).

Answer 5

Life without it would be sooo complicated and would be ruthless.....If we did not have it, than we would not have barely any rights and we would most likely be dead.....We would not be able to have the right to bare arms-to defend ourselves, and we would be very poor with a lot of murderers running around, along with crimes that were committed that would never be solved.

Answer 6

The origin of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States) is a strange one. The authors of the Constitution didn't include a "bill of rights", because they didn't envision needing one. During the debates over the ratification, many of the delegates insisted on a list of specific rights to be included.

The "Federalists", supporting the ratification, did not feel that a specific "bill of rights" was needed, because the Constitution provided the Federal Government with very limited powers. In fact, the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 lists eighteeen "enumerated powers" of the Federal government, and it was pretty specific that these were the ONLY powers allowed to the Feds. The series of pamphlets known as "The Federalist Papers" lay out their arguments in considerable detail, and I strongly recommend that you read them. (Linked below.)

The Anti-Federalists, who preferred the Articles of Confederation and distrusted the power of a Federal government, countered that while the Constitution listed only specific powers, there was no explicit prohibition on the Federal government usurping powers that had not be approved. They demanded an explicit list of the rights of the people to prevent abuse.

In the end, the Constitution was adopted, but the first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This is a list of things that the Federal government would be forever forbidden from doing. The Tenth Amendment reads: "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." That means, "If it isn't explicitly approved in the Constitution, the Federal government can't do it."

Unfortunately, the Anti-Federalists' fears have come true with a vengence; the current government of the United States is doing vast numbers of things never approved of by the Founders, and in fact are violating even the explicit prohibitions enacted in the Bill of Rights.

Here is one example. The Constitution doesn't say a THING about drugs; therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, all Federal drug control laws are unconstitutional. The States have jurisdiction over anything not covered in the Constitution, so STATE drug laws are allowed. Note that in 1919, the 18th Amendment permitted the Federal government to regulate alcohol, but this was repealed in 1933. There has never been a constitutional amendment to allow the Federal government to regulate drugs.

Even in cases in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty explicit, the Federal government has trampled them; for example, the explicit ban on gun control laws in the 2nd Amendment are routinely ignored.

So many of the "difficult things" you worry about are already happening.

Answer 7

people can get away with murder and there wont be any need for jails

Answer 8

We would basically not have the freedom we are guarenteed now