Hailee Francom

Mrs. Mckay

AP/IB ELA 11

18 October 2020

The Bill of Rights in Modern Society

The drafting of the Constitution was infamous in its time, as the American Revolution

was based on ideals of self-government and sovereignty within separate states. Federalists,

however, were in favor of a centralized government to maintain commerce and regulate taxes

among all of the States. This would be beneficial to the country as a whole; however

Republicans, a separate party than those of today’s society, wanted to preserve the weak central

government that they had fought for against Britain previously. These ideals stemmed from the

mistreatment by the English King, giving this party the belief that any powerful central

government would inevitably turn into a tyranny against the minorities of the country. On the

contrary, federalists felt it was more pressing to prevent a tyranny by the masses of the people.

The Bill of Rights was proposed by Republicans after the Constitution was written, because the

States had to ratify it, and Republican states did not agree with it. Prominent republican figures

like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated that the individual liberties of the people must

be preserved by an honest government. Therefore, they demanded their personal rights be written

down for all citizens to abide by, and federalists agreed in order to gain ratification of their

document.

To begin, the Bill of Rights’s first amendment is the most prominently problematic of the

rest of them because it encompasses multiple rights for the people on semi-similar matters. Of

those is the protection of discourse, where the Bill of Rights states Congress has no powers to
restrict or abridge the freedom of speech. However there are many instances where that law is

tried because certain speech may invade the rights or privacy of others. For example, the 2011

case 546 U.S. Sorrell vs. IMS Health Inc. deals with the process of “detailing” where reports of

prescriber behavior are leased off to manufacturers and doctors to promote the business of that

brand. The state of Vermont argues that for the sake of the integrity of the patient-doctor

confidentiality relationship and the avoidance of harassment, that without patient consent the

information they gather may not be sold or used for marketing. While these companies argued

that this was an abridgment of speech, Vermont counters that while it may not be direct speech,

the creation and dissipation counts as speech for purposes of the First Amendment (Sorrell, 3).

They came to the conclusion that prescriber-identifying information can only be used, without

the consent of the patient, if it is for health care research or to enforce compliance with insurance

formularies. This case proves that the First Amendment and its protection of freedom of speech

may be dissolved if the speech is invasive towards confidentiality and professional relationships.

Therefore there are holes in the Bill of Rights that were left by the drafters to be filled in by State

policy.

The First Amendment also prevents the government from prohibiting the right of the

people to peacefully assemble. Therefore groups that are assembling violently would lose the

right to continue assembling, but anyone else has the right to assemble at any public place. In the

572 U.S. Wood vs. Moss case, President George Bush made a last minute decision to stop for

dinner on his way to his cottage in 2011. Here, protestors and supporters alike gathered on

opposing sides of the street to watch him pass through. Once he stopped to eat, supporters

remained in their previous spots across the street, half a block away, while protestors crowded in

“within weapons reach” around the Inn that the President was dining at. State and local police
moved the protesters two blocks away at the direction of the Secret Service, and allowed

supporters to remain in their spots. Protestors claimed they were discriminated against because

they were relocated one block farther than the supporters of the President. While the first

amendment does encompass a distaste for discrimination based on viewpoint, the safeguard of

the President is also heavily emphasized in the Constitution (572 Wood, 5). The courts concluded

that the unplanned stop warranted the relocation of a group that they believed was a threat to the

President’s safety. This is important because up front, it is a violation of the promises made in

the Bill of Rights. In reality, the relocation of a mistrustful group to retain the President’s safety

just proves that the Bill of Rights has certain exceptions to fit the rapidly changing society and

modern government.

Last, the Second Amendment states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms,

and is heavily affected by our developing society. This amendment has a lot of room for error,

especially considering that it was written so many years ago. Stun guns are a good example of an

error that could not have been covered by the drafters, and carrying them around as you would a

regular firearm has been prohibited by the government. Courts concluded they were “a

thoroughly modern invention” that is unusual in terms of when the law was enacted (Caetano v

Massachusetts 577). The court also found that stun guns would not be readily adaptable to use in

the military. Therefore the prohibition on carrying stun guns is not against the second

amendment because the Bill of Rights thoroughly states that a “well regulated militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not

be infringed” (Bill of Rights, 1791). However in the Caetano 577 case, one woman obtained a

stun gun to protect her from an abusive ex-boyfriend who failed to comply with all of her

restraining orders. One night the gun came in useful when her abuser tried to attack again, and
she pointed it at him in self defense. While this gun of little harm protected her life, cops later

found out about it and took her into custody where she was convicted. The courts dismissed her

request for dismissal of the case under the Second Amendment, even though nobody denied that

she was carrying the stun gun in self defense. The courts tried to argue that the second

amendment only protects those weapons that were in existence during the eighteenth century,

however many firearms carried around today were not in existence back then, like the revolver or

the semi automatic pistol. If the fundamental right of self defense could not protect Caetano from

persecution, then states should turn to disarming the population instead of trying to regulate

which guns can or can’t be carried under the Second Amendment.

In conclusion, the Bill of Rights was revolutionary at its time, but also a grave necessity.

With the formation of a powerful central government, the rights of the people could easily have

been dissolved under the wealthy masses that preside over the populations. James Madison, the

writer of the Bill of Rights, included good amendments to the COnstitution that truly did protect

important rights of many Americans in his time. However, modern America has developed so

rapidly and diversely that all of the rules set out around 200 years ago could not possibly be

sufficient and applicable to our society today. The freedom of speech may be abridged for those

speaking hate speech or inflicting upon other’s private rights. The freedom to assemble may be

contracted for the safety and peacefulness of others, and the right to bear arms may not

encompass all of the different weapons that modern America has discovered. Consequently, the

Bill of Rights was designed to give all of the powers and rules not stated in the Constitution to

the States, allowing these loopholes to be mended to make an effort at a more perfect

government with liberty for all.

 Works Cited

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. 564 U.S. Supreme Court. 53. U.S. District Court, District of Vermont.

2011. Print.

Wood v. Moss. 572 U.S. Supreme Court. 22. U.S. District Court. 2013. Print.

Caetano v. Massachusetts. 577 U.S. Supreme Court. 12. U.S. District Court, Ashland,

Massachusetts. 2016. Print.

Madison, James. "The Bill of Rights." 15 Dec. 1791.