The adhering to is a collection of thoughts prompted by the publication of Linda R. Monk’s “The Bill of Rights: A User’s Guide” (Hachette E-book Group, 2018, 5th Ed.). In 1788, Alexander Hamilton argued in “Federalist 84” that a Bill of Rights was unneeded in a democracy because “the people today surrender very little and as they retain anything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Not every person was so convinced, and – in what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her foreword, phone calls “one of the good compromises that served guarantee passage of our founding document” – the states in 1791 ratified a “terse” Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
This guide – the fourth in a collection of updates from the authentic version, which was created for the 1991 bicentennial of the Bill of Rights and which gained the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for community schooling about the legislation – provides the heritage of these rights and their interpretations by the Supreme Court docket.
Monk’s other textbooks are “The Text We Live By: Your Annotated Manual to the Constitution” and “Ordinary Americans: U.S. Background By the Eyes of Daily People.”
* * *
Welcome, Linda, and thank you for using the time to participate in this problem-and-remedy trade for our audience.
Question: In her foreword, Justice Ginsburg writes that “the judiciary does not stand alone in guarding in opposition to governmental interference with fundamental rights,” which “is a demand we share with the Congress, the president, the states, and with the people today on their own.”
I note that your subtitle is “A User’s Manual.” How are you hoping audience may possibly use this guide?
Monk: My target was to make the rules I discovered at Harvard Legislation University accessible to day-to-day citizens. But I’m delighted that a lot of attorneys love the guide as very well. As James Madison said, “Knowledge will eternally govern ignorance, and a people today who mean to be their personal governors have to arm on their own with the electric power which awareness offers.” So awareness comes first, but then comes observe. The stories of the citizens who stood up for constitutional rules — Fannie Lou Hamer, Mary Beth Tinker, Susette Kelo, Simon Tam — inspire me and I hope will inspire other citizens as very well.
Question: You create that the Bill of Rights is “a living document” that “did not come with an instruction guide.” Can you elaborate on this notion?
Monk: I’m talking about the effect of the Bill of Rights on citizens, not on judges. As you know, the notion of a “living” Constitution is anathema to certain universities of jurisprudence, notably that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. They feel this idea offers judges a blank verify. But I quotation Justice William O. Douglas who wrote in 1961, “[T]he truth of flexibility in our each day lives is proven by the attitudes and insurance policies of people today towards just about every other in the very block or township in which we live.” That is the notion I want to emphasize, that our rights are enforced by our mutual respect as citizens.
Question: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution compose the Bill of Rights, and you dedicate a chapter to just about every modification. You insert one a lot more chapter for the 14th Amendment.
What is the romance concerning this modification and the Bill of Rights?
Monk: The 14th Amendment, which turns 150 yrs outdated this July, is actually a 2nd Bill of Rights, because it nationalizes the freedoms that formerly only limited the federal government. The Supreme Court docket employed the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights bit by bit to point out and local governments, which impact the most people today. Just before this procedure of “incorporation,” the Bill of Rights did not impact most Americans and handful of civil-liberties scenarios produced it to the Supreme Court docket. In addition, the 14th Amendment for the first time launched the theory of equality to the Constitution. “Equal safety of the laws” intended that government experienced to give authorized justification when it handled citizens in different ways. And most likely most essential, the 14th Amendment described citizenship for both equally the point out and national governments, a procedure that formerly experienced been still left to the states.
Question: A ton has occurred at the Supreme Court docket since the most current version of this guide arrived out in 2004. I note what have to be new discussions of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment, campaign finance), District of Columbia v. Heller (Next Amendment, specific proper to bear arms), Glossip v. Gross (Eighth Amendment, solutions of execution), and Obergefell v. Hodges (14th Amendment, exact same-sexual intercourse relationship), amongst some others.
Which modification would you say has found the most development and interest from the Supreme Court docket in excess of the past 14 yrs? In what way has the legislation formulated?
Monk: In the course of the past 14 yrs, there have been considerable developments in several regions, as you cite. Surely, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Next Amendment to fully adopt an specific proper to bear arms is significant, though many outstanding liberal students also embraced that tactic. The true frontier is how this proper can moderately be minimal, just as just about every other proper in the Bill of Rights has limits. But I believe the struggle of LGBTQ Americans for safety beneath the 14th Amendment is the most momentous change. Having said that, neither LGBTQ folks nor girls love the “suspect class” status that involves “strict scrutiny” as in racial discrimination.
Question: Your chapter on the First Amendment is at the very least two times the measurement of your chapters on just about every other modification. What tends to make this modification so essential?
Monk: I’d say it is the modification Americans cherish most, though they may possibly not be in a position to record all five freedoms it encompasses. It safeguards flexibility of expression — such as religion, speech, push, assembly and petition. There is a ton of heritage and a ton of litigation about individuals rights, and of course a ton of reader curiosity.
Question: In February, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent from the court’s denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra that “the Next Amendment is a disfavored proper.”
What do you believe he usually means by this, and could you set his text into a bigger context for our audience?
Monk: Considerably be it from me to set text in Justice Thomas’ mouth. But I assemble from looking through his dissent that he believes several lower courts, and the Supreme Court docket, are not dealing with limits on the Next Amendment as stringently as they would limits on, for example, First Amendment rights. Nonetheless in the past century of litigation, the courtroom has upheld time, put and manner limits excluded libel, slander, lively threats and pornography from cost-free speech safety and minimal the scope of First Amendment rights in universities and prisons. The Next Amendment could just be catching up.
Question: You note that the 3rd Amendment “has under no circumstances been the subject matter of a Supreme Court docket final decision.” Can you remind us courtroom-watchers what this amendment’s all about?
Monk: The 3rd Amendment prohibits the quartering of troops in residences all through peacetime, and in wartime devoid of lawful techniques. Although it is viewed as a relic of the Groundbreaking War, the 3rd Amendment has been cited as help for an unenumerated proper of privateness — together with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments.
Question: You create that the Fifth Amendment is a “constitutional hodgepodge,” the “longest and most various modification in the Bill of Rights.” Can you elaborate?
Monk: It’s the longest by sheer word rely, and it embraces a wide vary of rights beneath both equally civil and legal legislation. Of course, the very best recognized is the “right to remain silent” popularized on television. This proper stems from the Star Chamber in England, which pressured witnesses to swear to explain to the fact (beneath an oath to God, with the final penalty of eternal damnation) and then questioned a huge vary of thoughts about a range of topics. Sooner or later, another person would be found responsible of something, one way or the other. The Fifth Amendment also safeguards “due procedure of legislation,” most likely the most fundamental type of justice beneath civil and legal legislation. In addition, it ranges from the grand jury in legal legislation to just payment when non-public property is taken by the point out. A very huge scope of rights.
Question: Why do you create that the Ninth Amendment “is one of the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights”?
Monk: My con-legislation professor John Hart Ely wrote that believing in the Ninth Amendment was like believing in ghosts (He was a utilitarian and not a admirer of all-natural-rights principle.). Choose Robert Bork in contrast it to an ink blot. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Legislation sees it as a source of unenumerated rights, just as Post I’s essential-and-right clause is a source of unenumerated powers. Several Americans are involved about unelected judges remaining given a blank verify to create rights for some others, the Ninth Amendment is that blank verify. For what ever motive, the courts have been a lot more ready to defend unenumerated rights this sort of as privateness and vacation and relationship beneath the 14th Amendment, even even though, as Justice Arthur Goldberg said, the Ninth could be a lot more on level.
Question: The Supreme Court docket has still to make a decision a quantity of scenarios this expression involving the Bill of Rights, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (First Amendment, community-accommodations legislation), Carpenter v. United States (Fourth Amendment, digital privateness), and Metropolis of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt (Fifth Amendment, compelled statements).
What do you see as the greatest likely shifts in doctrine this yr and into the in the vicinity of future?
Monk: I’m a superior explicator than prognosticator, at the very least on the authorized reasoning that ought to be section of any Supreme Court docket opinion. That is what I concentration on in my guide: what the courtroom said fairly than what it may possibly do. Even though I supported the consequence in Obergefell, on equivalent-safety grounds, I really do not fully grasp the rationale for a liberty curiosity of folks “to outline and convey their identification.” I foresee that phrase engendering litigation. In Masterpiece, I have a personal curiosity because my mom produced and decorated wedding ceremony cakes. And when I valued her creativeness, I noticed it as similar to that of any artisan who presents a provider — whether it is cake, household furniture or fried hen. And to me, fried hen is absolutely an art sort.
Question: You create that for the constitutions of international nations, the “U.S. Bill of Rights serves as a reference level, if not always as a product.”
This problem could be the subject matter of a entire guide, but which amendments stand out as styles and which as only “reference points,” and why?
Monk: The U.S. Bill of Rights applies to so-referred to as “negative” rights fairly than “positive” rights. So Americans are to be cost-free from government limits on certain rights, but the Bill of Rights does not say the government have to assure positive rights — this sort of as the proper to wellness, schooling and a job. In other countries, this sort of as South Africa, these positive rights are a lot more outstanding in their constitutions. But devoid of a steady sort of government can this sort of rights truly be secured? The most essential notion I discovered in legislation college is “there is no proper devoid of a remedy.” That is what tends to make the U.S. program unique: Our rights have authorized cures through the Constitution, which are not able to be adjusted by majority rule.
Inquire the writer: The people today surrender very little,
SCOTUSblog (Apr. 26, 2018, 2:52 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/talk to-the-writer-the-people today-surrender-very little/