This was part of a discussion I had with friend John Walsh at WhisperZone a few years back on the need for systemic reforms. The writing is mine, other than the quoted material from Madison.

Before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and others pushed for the enactment of a Bill of Rights, fearing the abuse of federal powers by those in power. James Madison, framer and proponent of the Constitution, argued against it.

Madison said that there was no need to reserve powers to the individuals, or preserve their rights, because they weren't dealing with a sovereign ruler like a king. Rather, those in power were there at the exercise of the will of the people, and therefore no additional rights were needed that might muck things up.

Here are some excerpts of his analysis, which I think in some ways was an eerie prediction of the erosion of rights we've seen in the last 100 years, as well as being downright wrong on why such individual rights probably didn't need to be enumerated:

Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. . .

This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to. ... Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. ...

The difference so far as it relates to the point in question — the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power — lies in this: that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the Sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and, consequently the tyrannical will of the Sovereign is not [to] be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community.

He also went on to ask when a Bill of Rights might serve the people in a government such as ours, and stated:

Altho it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community.

Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers may by gradual & well times advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our Governments to danger on that side. (WRONG)

It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me to be well founded. (WRONG AGAIN!)

Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power.

With this explanation the remark may be true; and ... is ... applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which defines these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

In his cogent analysis Madison clearly identified that the source of power in our government is the people, where we have experienced the tyranny of the majority on both sides of the aisle. Moreover, he predicted that where there was a continual erosion in personal liberties allowed by that majority, ultimately it would result in a "sudden transition to an undue degree of power.

The issue remains as I see it is a systemic one, even more than activating and carrying out the will of the majority of American people to remove Bush (a will that does not yet exist). And that is, how to

1. protect our personal liberties against gradual erosion and the complete ursurpation by those elected (or worse, who you say steal an election) by the people;




2. qualify leaders based on their true intentions, experience, and qualifications, rather than their affiliation with a particular party, issue, or interest (especially the interests of those acting behind the scenes); and most importantly,




3. inspire the populace to take responsibility for the affairs of our nation and actions of its leadership, thereby requiring them to stay engaged and when necessary either remove them from power and/or overturn their wrongful actions against personal liberties and our highest interests.

These are not questions that are easily answered, but certainly must be considered and brought to the fore of the discussion. Simply removing the one who exercises the power we have willingly abdicated does little more than provide temporary relief.

If we are to enjoy the freedoms we think we have, we must reverse the gradual erosion of rights and return them to the people, and trust that they will find in their hearts the truth and direction to wield it better than those to whom we have delegated our authority.

To see his full letter in response to Thomas Jefferson, click here.