Talk:United States Bill of Rights

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

A lot of the text in the Bill of Rights resembles text in Article II of the Northwest Ordinance. It reads: "The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same."

This article and this one point out that these rights appeared in the Bill of Rights only two years later. This paper seems to make the same case, though I have only read the abstract (as it's 65 pages long). So I propose listing it in the lead, along with the Virginian Declaration, the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added it, citing the second source I linked to above. Richard75 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Have moved the Ordinance from "especially the" to "as well as" (leaving the Virginia Bill of Rights as the principal source for the concepts and not described as a duo-principal source). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Missing from this page is what the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 did to the Bill of Rights

In December 2011, Congress changed the Bill of Rights to remove habeas corpus using language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Only 13 senators, from both parties, vetoed this and on December 31, 2011 Obama signed it into law. AccuracyPrevails (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: A law can't change the constitution, and that source is unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Hamilton's reaction to the Bill of Rights after they were proposed by Congress and ratified

Is there a single reference that talks about Hamilton's reaction to the Bill of Rights after they were ratified and became law, or anything post-ratification where he invoked them in any way? Or even anything about his response once (his soon-to-be-former-partner) James Madison was convinced of the necessity of such a bill and Congress was well on its way to propose the amendments?

Every source I can find, and all the content current there in the relevant wiki pages, only talk about the pre-ratification part - Hamilton boasted in Federalist No. 84 essay that the Constitution was a masterpiece document the way it currently was and there was no need for a bill of rights; he was completely overruled as the other Federalists promised to add these amendments in order to assuage the Anti-Federalist concerns and help get the Constitution enacted. But is there any information on how he responded once it was clear he lost this battle? Or, once the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in effect, any information about Hamilton mentioning them while in a government capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, or in any political discussion? Even the Alien and Sedition Acts article is missing any content that talks about them together.

The utter absence of such information and the complete silence from him is maddening - like he can never admit to anything from him and his essays being wrong. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:B9F8:AE1F:34FF:D500 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

William Lambert, the engrosser of the Bill of Rights, in lede caption

I'd added William Lambert, who handwrote the original Bill of Rights document which is now displayed in the Charters of Freedom Rotunda of the National Archives. It was reverted as being tangential and as a "secondary detail".

Adding Lambert to the caption takes up very little space, as in this edit, and gives both the credit and a historical focus on this handwritten document which changed the world. Lambert was selected to do that job, did it well, and his work is displayed for all to visit during the run-up to the 250th anniversary of the document that preceded it and made it possible - the Declaration of Independence, exhibited a few feet away. Nothing tangential about Lambert's contribution to American and world history. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)