In an Oct. 24, 1787, letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison expressed that, "Col. [George] Mason left Philadelphia in an exceeding ill humor indeed. A number of little circumstances arising in part from the impatience which prevailed towards the close of the business, conspired to whet his acrimony. He returned to Virginia with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan if possible. He considers the want of a bill of rights as a fatal objection."
At the Constitutional Convention, in mid-September 1787, committed Anti-Federalists George Mason and Eldridge Gerry failed to persuade any of their fellow delegates to preface the Constitution with a bill of rights. "It would give great quiet to the people," urged Mason. He also thought it would be easy to compile a list given the widespread presence of an introductory bill of rights at the state level. A few days later, on Sept. 17, 1787, both Mason and Gerry declined to sign the Constitution, citing the absence of a bill of rights.
Mason's main objection was that, "There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general [federal] government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declaration of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of common law."
However, months later, in February 1788, the Massachusetts Compromise was struck, thanks to the efforts of two other prominent Anti-Federalists, Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Thus the influential state of Massachusetts agreed to the ratification of the Constitution with the promise by Madison and the Federalists to support a bill of rights. And unlike the political class of today, they kept their promise.
OK, great, but why is this history lesson important? It's important as a reminder that if the Anti-Federalists hadn't stuck to their guns, we may not have the Bill of Rights – no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – and no freedom of speech, assembly, etc. beyond what our benevolent government chooses to bestow upon us, or take away. We would, in effect, be modern-day Great Britain.
You may have heard about the arrest, in Great Britain, of Englishman Tommy Robinson, founder and former leader of the English Defence League, a far-right anti-Islam group.
Ben Shapiro writes that he "was arrested for standing outside a court building and reporting on a trial involving the alleged grooming of young girls for sexual assault by radical Muslims."
Shapiro adds that Robinson was also arrested a year earlier for filming, outside another courthouse, "where a trial for alleged gang rape by radical Muslims was taking place."
The sentencingjJudge cited "pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting ... that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial." The media were also banned from reporting on the trial for the same reasons.
At this point, you may be shouting at your computer or whatever other device you may be reading this on: "What about freedom of speech!" This guy was on a public street simply reporting on the trial. He has every right to that, does he not?
Well, no – he does not. See, jolly old England has no Constitution – no Bill of Rights. There is no First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, assembly or right of redress.
Therefore, the courts and the politicians can legally mandate such things, and there isn't a darn thing Robinson or any other Brit can do about it. If the powers that be in the U.K. want to shut down reporting of gang rapes and sex slavery because the defendants are all Muslims, there is nothing stopping their politically correct insanity.
As Shapiro writes, there can be no society without standards, and our standard is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what sets us apart and ahead of all other nations.
We had best keep this is mind as the radical left in this country continues to assault both. Once we lose these rights, we can never reacquire them.