184k views
4 votes
Why do you think the Framers did not believe the Bill of Rights should limit the scope of government at the state level? Does this suggest that they were comfortable with restrictions on freedoms of speech, religion, and the press, for example, if they were imposed by the states rather than by the national government? Why?​

User Glenc
by
6.5k points

1 Answer

6 votes

Final answer:

The Framers trusted states to protect individual liberties and focused on limiting federal power. They included the Tenth Amendment to reserve certain powers to the states. Later interpretations of the Constitution extended federal protections to limit states' infringements on rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Framers believed that state constitutions already protected individual liberties, so federal intervention was unnecessary. Expecting states to safeguard rights like freedom of speech and religion on their own, the Framers focused on restraining federal power.

Individual states, with their own constitutions, already had histories of securing rights like freedom of speech and religion. As such, the Framers did not initially set the Bill of Rights to limit state governments.

The inclusion of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, further shows this intention. This belief stemmed from fears of federal overreach and a trust in local governance to protect liberties enshrined in state constitutions.

Over time, interpretations of the Constitution, particularly through the incorporation doctrine via the Fourteenth Amendment, have led to these rights being protected from state infringement.

User Guillefix
by
7.1k points