Jane, my assistant in my Constitution Class I teach on Thursday evenings in Temecula, California, was very concerned when an Email to her accused the founders of being a bunch of wealthy elitists that wanted to usurp the rights of the average folk, and that if it wasn't for the Bill of Rights, they would have stomped all over the rights of the people.
And the emails she had been getting were wrong.
Below are those accusations, and my response:
--------------
From: XXXXX XXXXXXX
To: XXXXX XXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:46 PM
Subject: Comments on the Bill of Rights
I posted the article on the Murrieta Patch and got a very interesting response that I thought you would be likely to appreciate.
"As I understand, the Constitution was drafted by the Elites (the Wealthy, a.k.a. the 1-Percenters) while the Bill of Rights was drafted by the Average Folk (a.k.a. the 99-Percenters). The Elites wanted the Constitution to ensure that the Average Folk (who were the Majority) couldn’t vote in new laws that harmed the Minority (and the Wealthy considered themselves the Minority). In the meantime, the Average Folk wanted a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution to ensure the Wealthy couldn’t use their Constitutional power to ignore and override the will of the Majority and usurp the Average Folk's basic rights of freedom. This is why I thought the Amendments “amend” the Constitution and that public servants who take an oath to uphold the Constitution also must uphold its Amendments. (I could be wrong, but that’s what I thought.)"
From XXX XXXXXXX
-------------
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Jane XXXXX
wrote:
This person has no clue about why the Constitution was written. Sounds like a liberal progressive Democrat to me. This person is stupid, if you ask me.
-------------
From: XXXXX XXXXXXX
To: Jane XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the Bill of Rights
Jane,
I can't believe what I am hearing. Are you serious?
XXXXX XXXXXXX
---------------
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Jane XXXXX wrote:
When someone uses the terms "elite", "wealthy" and "average folk", it makes me think about what is going on today. This is obama terminology. It is my understanding that most of our Founder's weren't wealthy, by any means; especially, after the Revolutionary War ended. They lost their fortunes and their lives were never normal after that. I guess I have a problem with the way this was written, but, after reading it again, I get the point. It is the terminology that threw me.
-------------
From: XXXXX XXXXXXX
To: Jane XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the Bill of Rights
Thirty four of the framers of the Costitution were lawyers. Others owned plantations and their own businesses. Robert Morris was perhaps the richest man in the country and George Washington wasn't too far behind. I think that if you check with Doug you will find out that the delegates to the convention were rather well to do.
-------------
From: Jane XXXXX
To: Doug Gibbs
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:03 AM
Subject: Comments on the Bill of Rights
Hi Doug,
Is XXXXX correct?
Jane
-------------
Jane,
He is right and wrong at the same time. The premise is inaccurate. The framers of the Constitution were learned men, many spoke Latin and French in addition to English. A majority of them did not lose everything during the Revolution, though the signers of the Declaration of Independence did. Most of the signers of the Constitution were well to do, and did not want for anything. That said, their success does not make them the enemy, that is liberal propaganda of today that demonizes big corporations, executives, and the wealthy in general. I don't care if they were wealthy. Their research and determination created the greatest governing document ever devised.
One of the things they did was originally push for only property owners to be able to vote. Property owners were considered to be wealthy, so that is where this liberal propagandist gets their premise. The reasoning by the writer, however, is all wrong. The founders didn't want to set the system up that way because they were trying to ensure the average folk didn't vote, but because they wanted the people voting to have an active interest in the election - or as some people may put it, they wanted the people that were voting to have "skin in the game."
The fear was that the "poor folk" that were not property owners may begin to vote in people that would provide gifts from the coffer, or in today's language, entitlements. Once a system of entitlements is launched, it will continue to progress until the dependents on government outnumber those providing taxes. That makes such a system unsustainable, and would spell the eventual downfall of the system. Therefore, to protect America from such a devastating practice, the republic was designed to use only a limited amount of democratic processes. Understand, pure democracy is a danger, and the republic being created not only was filled with checks and balances to ensure no part of government had too much power on its own, but that the people's power to vote did not have too much power, either.
The Anti-federalists, however, fearing the federal government may have too much power, and feared that the federal government may stomp on States Rights, and the rights of the people, demanded a Bill of Rights. Thousands of recommendations and proposals flooded the new government regarding the new Bill of Rights, but in the end it came down to twelve amendments to be proposed, and only ten were initially ratified. An eleventh was ratified in 1992, and became the 27th Amendment. Though unnecessary, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) sought to clarify that the federal government had no authority over State issues and the rights of the individuals. Unfortunately, because the Bill of Rights is written in a "the federal government can't do this, or that" manner, it muddies the waters. In other words, the first seven articles were for the most part written in a manner that granted to the federal government its powers. If the authority was not listed, the federal government could not do it. The Second Amendment, for example, tells the federal government it cannot infringe on gun rights, but in the first seven articles the federal government was never given the authority to infringe on gun rights, anyway, therefore making the Second Amendment unnecessary.
The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was to be a clarification so that the federal government understood its limitations.
In other words, the Bill of Rights was not devised to make sure the elitists didn't usurp the average folk's rights and freedoms, but to simply clarify what was already in force by the first seven articles.
However, because it tells the government something it can't do, today's liberal is convinced that the whole Constitution is that way. Therefore, when you tell a liberal something is unconstitutional because the federal government is not granted that authority, often the response will be, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?" The Constitution does not work that way. It enumerates the federal government's authorities, and if a power is not enumerated, for the federal government to receive that authority the States must grant it to the federal government through the ratification of a proposed amendment.
So, yes, the founders, for the most part, were wealthier, and among the most respected in their communities. They were, with a few exceptions like Alexander Hamilton, not political elitists in the sense that they held themselves up as the all knowing rulers and dictators of the general will. These men were like the common folk, but had the position and fortune to do more than be an average citizen. Their wealth gave them the opportunity to do what they did.
This "wealthy versus poor" attitude is a mentality of class warfare created by liberalism, and is often the source of these kinds of arguments. Yes, there are those in our society that become wealthy and for some of them their greed gets the best of them, and their wealth becomes more important than everything else to them. That is unfortunate, but the reality of what "the love of money" can do. That is why there is a verse about how hard it is for the wealthy to get into Heaven (camel through an eye of a needle). But this is not because "wealth" is a bad thing, but because when wealthy the human condition has the tendency to elevate that wealth as an elite status of the person. Blessed are those that achieve wealth, but keep God at the highest, and are able to keep their heads about themselves enough to do an extraordinary thing like devise the Constitution.
And, thank God for the wealthy, for they are the innovators and the achievers. It is them that creates jobs, and moves products. The Left may want to demonize them, but in my opinion, it is the wealthy that makes this nation prosperous - and gives us the inspiration to achieve wealth as well.
Blessings,
Douglas V. Gibbs
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.politicalpistachio.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
