How does the Bill of Rights balance govermental powers with the rights of individuals?

Answer 1

It guards against the "tyranny of the majority."

In other words, it specifies *limits* on what a government can do ... even a democratically elected government. It recognizes that the majority is NOT always right. That the majority of people in a population may support a law, and the majority of representatives may vote to pass a law, when that law is oppressive to a minority of individuals.

It gives an individual the basis on which to challenge an unjust act (such as an arrest, or the passage of a law) by the government. If prosecuted and convicted by the government, the individual can appeal to the Supreme Court that the law itself violates the Constitution ... the Bill of Rights describes on what basis the constitutionality of the law can be challenged.

Answer 2

By being the balance for individual rights to the powers of government listed in the body of the Constitution. The reason the Bill of Rights had to be added before the Constitution could be ratified was that it did not spell out the limits to the powers of central government which were specified in the original Constitution. People were afraid that they were creating too powerful a government, although divided into three branches for checks and balances. So the Bill of Rights was added to do two things: spell out what individual rights needed to be spelled out and, in the Tenth Amendment, leave everything else to "the States respectively, or to the people." That is, the Tenth Amendment was supposed to set a final limit on the power of the central government.

I consider the Tenth Amendment the most violated one of the whole Constitution. The federal government was supposed to stay small.

Answer 3

It doesn't "balance" those two things at all.

Article 1, section 8 describes the powers of Congress.

The first eight amendments describe the rights of the people. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments account for the general principle that the federal government has limited powers and cannot exercise powers not delegated to it.

Based on what is in the text alone, there was no effort to strike any kind of balance between powers and rights. For example, can Congress pass a law to ban the interstate shipment of books? If you rely on Congress' Article 1, sec. 8 powers, then yes it can. But if you rely on the First Amendment, then no it can't.

Answer 4

For a technical historical answer, contact Jon Roland of the Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org

Traditionally, the Bill of Rights defines specific rights of citizens that were not spelled out in the Constitution, in an attempt to reinforce these as reserved to the people where government could not infringe: (1) free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (2) right to bear arms with respect to militia (3) freedom from quartering of soldiers (4) right to security and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (5) freedom from self-incrimination (6 and 7) right to speedy public trial, legal defense and other due process procedures, and right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy (8) freedom from cruel or unusual punishment or excessive fines or bails (9 and 10) protection of rights regardless of enumeration and reservation of rights to States or the people not otherwise delegated or prohibited under the Constitution.

However, if the existence of these laws in writing were enough to reinforce equal checks and balances, there would not have been a need to add the Fourteenth Amendment about "equal protection under the law." I find this concept of "equal protection" necessary to apply the Bill of Rights fairly to respect the consent of all the governed parties, instead of favoring some interests over others in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (see Public Law 96-303, 1980).

In practice, I find that only the educated practice and agreed enforcement of Constitutional rights guarantees these to anyone. The First Amendment especially reflects natural laws that govern all humanity -- every human being desires free exercise to act, free speech and press to communicate, and the right peaceably to assemble and to petition as part of due process. Collectively, our individual rights become the three functions of government -- from establishing and interpreting laws and contracts by written and spoken word, to exercising individual freedom and authority, and assembling in protest or petition to represent and defend our interests whether in courts or Congress, or school, churches or other institutions.

As individuals learn to balance our natural rights with those of others, and between the level of the individual to the collective level of government, that is when we will realize the checks and balances intended between the three branches of government, as well as the levels of government of local, state, and federal.

http://www.houstonprogressive.org/isocracy.html

Answer 5

that's what it is or does, it guarantees the rights of the citizen above the rights of the government, the government is the power in the equation so the individuals rights do balance things somewhat.

Answer 6

Dude,

I've already done my degree in poli sci. Just do the work!

Answer 7

ONLY when U elect ppl to preserve them.