On 15 December 1791, 233 years ago, the eleven-article US Bill of Rights was adopted as a unit. It is a collection of mutually-supporting limitations on the powers of the Federal Government to act as an agent for the united States. As a result of its provisions, later de facto and sometimes de jure extended to limit State governments, a multitude of individual rights have been protected since then.

At least nominally. Virtually since their implementation, there have been thousands of attempts to take away or restrict those rights, to work around the provisions, and just far too many of those have been successful, some for many years. Other provisions are ignored or just winked at.

Most States had or have adopted similar Bills of Rights in their State constitutions. (Some stupidly figured that since the Federal version existed, they didn’t have to adopt everything. Others even more stupidly tinkered with the provisions. Many failed to (and still fail) to understand the difference between rights and privileges or permission.) Sadly, as with the Federal version, all too many attacks have been made and too many of those succeeded in whittling away, or ignoring many clauses.

The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution itself and far too many of the later amendments, is not perfect. But history has demonstrated time and again that an American’s liberty is what it is today because this short document was rammed down the throats of many of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps its worst failing has been noted by such luminaries as L Neil Smith and Boston T Party: no method of enforcement provided to the States or to the people of the States when it has been violated, twisted, and perverted.

Perhaps a second failing is a failure to define the responsibilities of the States relative to these clauses, and therefore a default to letting the Federal court system be the arbiter and often final decider. The corrupting effects of democracy have seized on these failings to damage it.

Today, although there are many organizations and efforts dedicated to preserving and sustaining (and even restoring) the Bill of Rights, there are a large number of efforts – both groups and powerful individuals – intent on gutting more and more of the provisions. It is a battle that is now, well, about 233 years old.

There have been attempts in other nations to imitate it: most, we fear and see, have so warped and redefined the various provisions that their “Declaration of Rights” have in essence been gutted. The worst and perhaps most common examples is adding an exception such as “bounds [on liberty] may be determined only by Law.” (Quote from the 4th Article of the French Declaration of 1789.)

The Bill of Rights is a bare minimum and for lovers of liberty nowhere near enough.

What would be enough? Perhaps the very first clause of that French 4th article, ending at the first comma in the English translation:

Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others.

Followed by a provision on enforcement, perhaps as simple as “conviction by a unanimous decision of a randomly-selected jury of twelve and ratified by a majority decision of a second randomly-selected jury of twelve, followed by immediate execution.”

Do you think that might be an adequate enforcement mechanism?