G.K. Chesterton wrote that if men do not learn history, they will lose their rights. Leonard Levy's book titled THE ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS justifies this remark, and this book gives a solid account of what should be important to Americans. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not know history and care little about their civil liberties. Yet, Levy' book is there for the record. Levy gives detailed background to civil liberties and explains that the Bill of Rights document was assure in early National U.S. History. THE ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS is a book that explains the modifications and enhancements of rights which are too often taken for granted or have been forgotten.

The Framers, as Levy calls them, did not include a Bill of Rights when they wrote the Constitution in the summer of 1787. Some of the Framers did not think they were necessary. Others argued that the state constitutions provided for civil liberties rendering a Bill of Rights unnecessary. However, the Anti-Federalists used the fact that because the U.S. Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, that was reason not to ratify the document. The Federalists looked foolish when arguing that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and quickly changed their views in support of the Bill of Rights. The political bargain was that a Bill of Rights would be proposed to be added to the U.S. Constutition, and ratificastion was based on this promise. The Anti-Federalists' complaint about a Bill of Rights is important. This reviewer wrote elsewhere that without the Anti-Federalists, there would be no Bill of Rights. Without a Bill of Rights, there would be no U.S. Constitution.

Levy begins the assertion of rights with the rights of Habeas Corpus and protection of Bills of Attainder. Habeas Corpus (to have the body or person) meant that one could not be detained indefinately without a formal charge of a specific criminal act. The Petition of Right (1628)provided this protection in an attempt to prevent English monarchs from arresting political opponents and dissenters and holding them without formal charges. This protection afforded those arrested a chance to inform a judge that charges were bogus, and defendants knew exactly what charges they faced. Therefore defendents and their attornies were able to mount a defense against the charges.

Bills of Attainder are forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. The English monarchs used Bills of Attainder to get death sentences against political opponents. A Bill of Attainder was a Parliamentary Act designed to punish someone without due process. Henry VIII got rid of Cromwell by this method.

Levy's book deals extensively with First Amendment Rights. At the time of ratification of the U.S. Constitution, most Americans were Protestant, and Protestants were given considerable religious freedom. Catholics found safe haven in Maryland, and aside from some Puritan excesses, there was almost complete religious freedom. Some colonial legislatures disestablished the Church of England. Unlike Europe, people could enter professions and businesses regardless of religious convictions. As an aside, the Pennsylvania colonists probably had the most religious freedom.

Other First Amendment Rights included Freedom of the Press and Speech. Blackstone's COMMENTARIES served as a guide which only provided that there should be no prior restainst. However, men could be charge for seditious libel for what was written and published. Criminal libel was enforced even after ratification of the Bill of Rights. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, including Thomas Jefferson, used criminal libel laws against political opponents. But when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, there was vigorous protest against criminal libel. These criminal actions stopped between 1798-1800 when men argued that since the government was of the people, they could not libel themselves by dissent and criticism.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was part of English Law. Levy explains that this was in part to keep men ready for militia duty, and men could use arms to protect their homes and loved ones. Pennsylvania which did not have a militia, still allowed men to be armned. This right has been debated with the improvement and lethal effect of modern firearms.

Levy's examination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is interesting. Originall English authorities could use general warranst which violated privacy and security. Levy patiently explained that protest over Writs of Assistance used by British authorites gradually led to specific search and arrest warrants. This development was based on Chapter 39 of Magna Carta (1215) which Levy contends was misinterpretated.

Levy also explains that the Fourth Amendment overlaps the protection against self incrimination of the Fifth Amendment. If authorities had general warrants, they could use the abuse of search to incriminate men and women. Levy also gives a good explanation of the use of Grand Juries beginning with King Henry II (1154-1189). The problem of grand jurors is that they were used as trial jurors which tainted criminal cases. As early as 1352, the English separated grand juries from trial or petite juries. In other words, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the mention of grand juries blended with Sixth Amendment Rights.

Trial by jury originally gave defendents the right to challenge prosecutors and their witnesses. Gradually, defendants could confront hositle witnesses and present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. The use of 12 jurors may have been based on the 12 Tribes of Isreal or the 12 Apostles of Christ.

Seventh Amendment Rights provided that Common Law Rules would apply to civil cases. Anti-Federalist opponents complained about this until Madison & co. included it in the Bill of Rights.

Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines and cruel and unusal punishment are self explanatory. Flogging was not considered cruel, and the English used flogging on women as late as 1841. The death penalty was not considered cruel as long as the execution did not involve torture. Basically, this amendment was based on the premise that the punishment fit the crime.

Levy explains that the Ninth Amendment protection of unenumerate rights was dormant until 1965 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that forbade family planning and contraception. Levy explains that Ninth Amendment rights are part of natural law and includes decisions of marriage, family life, careers, etc. This amendment tried to protect those rights that could be forseen in the late 18th century.

Leonard Levy wrote a comprehensive book re The Bill of Rights. He could have cited the Catholic Canon Law as a source of Natural Law. He is one of the few to suggest that Trial by Jury originated with the Catholic Council of Lyon in 1215. Yet this book is important for anyone who appreciates his or her civil liberties. Unfortunately, those who do care are few in number these days.

Levy's analysis is often times good, but he also makes some unfortunate plunders. For example, Levy does not ask, what does "bear arms" mean? Instead, he asks, was the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right? The problem with this is it attempts to understand 18th century language in present-day terms. It is analogous to fitting a square peg in a round hole. It only leads to distortion and many of the Constitution's term not being explained properly, if at all. Levy also looks in the wrong places for original meaning. For the Establishment Clause, he looks at the states' constitutions, then assumes what they meant is what the U.S. Constitution meant. The Establishment Clause simply required the federal government to let the states decide for themselves religious matters. Some states had established churches; some didn't. Because of the different purposes of the state and federal establishment clauses (and the fact people saw the two clauses as having two different meanings), what the one meant is not necessarily an indication of what the other meant. Quite the contrary, prominent constitutional scholar Akhil Amar persuasively demonstrates that the Federal establishment clause meant that the government could favor religion over non-religion, but not one sect of another. A position Levy rejects based upon his illogical historical analysis. Levy's analysis on the "criminal procedure" Amendments are pretty good, but the entire book, including these chapters, suffers from too many references to cases and documents (several misleading and sometimes irrelevant) and not enough analysis. It leads to the book being pretty boring.


However, I highly recommend both Amar's "Bill of Rights", the Constitution and Criminal Procedure, and the American Constitution: A Biography."

At first, I was surprised how many good reviews this book received. After reading the reviews, I know why: ignorance. The reviews of this book demonstrate an extreme simple mindlessness. Levy's analysis is occasionally good, but is more often quiet pathetic. For example, Levy does not ask, what does "bear arms" mean? Instead, he asks, was the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right? The problem with this is it attempts to understand 18th century language in present-day terms. It is analogous to fitting a square peg in a round hole. It only leads to distortion and many of the Constitution's term not being explained properly, if at all. Levy also looks in the wrong places for original meaning. For the Establishment Clause, he looks at the state constitution, then assumes what they meant is what the U.S. Constitution meant. This is ridiculous. The Establishment Clause simply required the federal government to let the states decide for themselves religious matters. Some states had established churches; some didn't. Because of the different purposes of the state and federal establishment clauses (and the fact people saw the two clauses as having two different meanings), what the one meant is not necessarily an indication of what the other meant. Quite the contrary, prominent constitutional scholar Akhil Amar persuasively demonstrates that the Federal establishment clause meant that the government could favor religion over non-religion, but not one sect of another. A position Levy rejects based upon his illogical historical analysis.

I have read many books on the Constitution. This was by far the most boring.

However, I highly recommend both Amar's "Bill of Rights" and the American Constitution: A Biography."

This book is fatally flawed. It is not that Levy's conclusions don't follow from his premises, but that his premises are wrong. To wit, he asks whether the second amendment is an individual right or collective right. Since the Founding generation did not view the amendment in these terms, his answer can't possibly be right. The true asnwer is that it is more akin to persons on a jury (See Amar's Constitution: A biogrpahy). Amar's interpreation is more consistent with EVERY word of the amendment and not just few of the words, which Levy's reading does. Another example is his establishment clause discussion. Everyone knows that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal government , so Levy's discussion of the state's practices to determine what the establishment clause meant is perplexing. Once again, Amar's interpretation is much better. He acknowleges this federalsim protection. He then discuess how the controvery over the territories changed the understanding. After that, it meant that the government could prefer religion over irreligion, but not one sect over another. This fits in much better with the structure and text of the Bill of Rights as well as the lessons of American history. Levy doesn't discuss how the 14th amendment changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Now this may be an unfair criticism of Levy, but regarding the Rights against the states, the 14th amendments incorpoation determines the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I think Levy should have included the 14th Amendment's signficance regarding the Rights, since now the Rights agaisnt the states is more important than against the the Federal government (not to mention the rights are no protected differently even against the federal government because of the 14th Amd). Levy's book can also be boring because he gets caught in the detail of each and every word of each of state's consitution. In sum, I do not recommend this book because it is inaccurate and boring.

However, I highly recommend both Amar's "Bill of Rights" and the American Constitution: A Biography."

This book is fatally flawed. It is not that Levy's conclusions don't follow from his premises, but that his premises are wrong. To wit, he asks whether the second amendment is an individual right or collective right. Since the Founding generation did not view the amendment in these terms, his answer can't possibly be right. The true asnwer is that it is more akin to persons on a jury (See Amar's Constitution: A biogrpahy). Amar's interpreation is more consistent with EVERY word of the amendment and not just few of the words, which Levy's reading does. Another example is his establishment clause discussion. Everyone knows that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal government , so Levy's discussion of the state's practices to determine what the establishment clause meant is perplexing. Once again, Amar's interpretation is much better. He acknowleges this federalsim protection. He then discuess how the controvery over the territories changed the understanding. After that, it meant that the government could prefer religion over irreligion, but not one sect over another. This fits in much better with the structure and text of the Bill of Rights as well as the lessons of American history. Levy doesn't discuss how the 14th amendment changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Now this may be an unfiar criticism of Levy, but regarding the Rights against the states, the 14th amendments incorpoation determines the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I think Levy should have included the 14th Amendment's signficance regarding the Rights, since now the Rights agaisnt the states is more important than against the the Federal government. Levy's book can also be boring because he gets caught in the detail of each and every word of each of state's consitution. In sum, I do not recommend this book because it is inaccurate and boring.

However, I highly recommend both Amar's "Bill of Rights" and the American Constitution: A Biography."

It may come as a surprise to some that several framers of the Constitution thought that a Bill of Rights was not even necessary. Alexander Hamilton wrote "why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed." Levy gladly points out that this logic is a central fallacy of the Federalist argument. This is only one of the interesting stories behind the enactment of the Bill of Rights told in this short book. The brief history of Habeas Corpus is well worth mentioning and is one of the highlights of Levy's study. However, as the book continues, Levy's analysis gets rather formulaic as he attacks amendment after amendment. Levy begins with the English common law roots and then compares and contrasts how the rights contained in the Bill came from the various colonies. However, Levy is a good enough writer to complement this formula with several interesting anecdotes to break up the monotony of his writing. Overall, a highly recommended introduction to the historical roots of Constitutional law.

Where did our constitutional rights come from? Why are they written the way they are? Were they original, or did our Founding Fathers get the ideas elsewhere? These questions and more will be answered in Levy's Origins of the Bill of Rights.

I'll begin with the weaknesses and get them out of the way. I'm not a constitutional historian, nor am I a lawyer. Although I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable, Levy could have introduced his terms better, particularly when he devotes a chapter to them. Habeas Corpus, for instance. The lawyers out there are now laughing at my ignorance, but I had to think and carefully recall exactly what that means. Law is precise, so history of law might consider being equally precise. Also, when citing cases, Levy sometimes left it unclear what the case was about.

References. Somehow, despite almost forty pages of documents in the appendix, Levy manages to not quite every actually list the amendments in their final form, despite reproducing the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, and the various House and Senate versions. All right, this is easy information to find, but would it have hurt for the book to be self-contained?

For those who care, the third and tenth amendments are barely mentioned.

Style. I'm transitioning into the good points, since one person's good style is another's bad. The middle of the book heavily emphasizes case histories, both in America and in England. Sometimes this is to the detriment of readability. If you're just reading this book out of curiosity, some philosophical discussion might be nice. If you're looking for names and dates of trials, then this is useful of course. It doesn't completely dry the book out, but it does make it drag a bit, at least for my tastes.

So what's good about it?

What's good is that Levy points out, thoroughly and conscientiously that we have rights. We, the people. Me. You. The neighbor down the street. These rights come from somewhere, and they go back a long way. To those who want to know what the original intents were of the authors of the constitution, this is a place to look. Do you think that the second amendment only arms the National Guard? Wrong! Do you think that the government can give religions all sorts of special treatment as long as it doesn't pick a favorite? Wrong! Do you think that a right doesn't exist unless it is specified exactly, spelled out in intricate detail? Wrong! To liberals who cover their ears when the second amendment is discussed, and conservatives who are in open revolt against many of the others, read this book. Or read another one, but this one is the subject of the review. Frankly, you may be surprised at what they thought back in the olden days.

Well written and interesting. This book gives a wonderful historical perspective of the laws, practices, and history that led up to the framing of the Bill of Rights. With careful study, Levy has built a window into the politics, thoughts, and fears that led to the inclusion of the BOR and includes many examples of the reasons that they were included. Well written and entertaining, this lesson in American history reads like series of short stories.

The upset with politicians today is nothing new. "Origins.." puts a human history face on the Bill of Rights. Amazing that our country has retained the original hopes of our founders. Levy is excellent in his description and inspiration.

The upset with politicians today is nothing new. "Origins.." puts a human history face on the Bill of Rights. Amazing that our country has retained the original hopes of our founders. Levy is excellent in his description and inspiration.

Levy, the author of many books on this & related topics, oudoes himself with this gem. It's a refreshing change from the insinuations of today's anti-rights crowd, who seem to have never heard of the 9th Amendment (or pretend not to understand it), that the exact language in the first 10 amendments gives us (or delimits) our rights. All the Bill of Rights does is to guarantee the rights we already have. By delving into the history of the most important amendments and showing why they were needed and enacted, Levy shows clearly that they are indeed inalienable -- and that they were intended to be limitations on the power of the government. To use an analogy, suppose all of the Framers were atheists, and that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically PROHIBITED (i.e., made illegal) the construction or existence of churches. Would the fact that the Founders had written this and had it ratified by the states mean that we have no legal or moral right to build or attend houses of worship? How could the Framers have possessed the authority to deny us this right? As Levy's analysis makes clear, human rights antedate governments and therefore cannot be abridged or violated by them. This well-written book is very clearly presented and easy to understand; one need not be an expert on the subject, or a lawyer, to be enlightened by it. Read it yourself and then recommend it to both high school and college students.

Levy, the author of many books on this & related topics, oudoes himself with this gem. It's a refreshing change from the insinuations of today's anti-rights crowd, who seem to have never heard of the 9th Amendment (or pretend not to understand it), that the exact language in the first 10 amendments gives us (or delimits) our rights. All the Bill of Rights does is to guarantee the rights we already have. By delving into the history of the most important amendments and showing why they were needed and enacted, Levy shows clearly that they are indeed inalienable -- and that they were intended to be limitations on the power of the government. To use an analogy, suppose all of the Framers were atheists, and that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically PROHIBITED (i.e., made illegal) the construction or existence of churches. Would the fact that the Founders had written this and had it ratified by the states mean that we have no legal or moral right to build or attend houses of worship? How could the Framers have possessed the authority to deny us this right? As Levy's analysis makes clear, human rights antedate governments and therefore cannot be abridged or violated by them. This well-written book is very clearly presented and easy to understand; one need not be an expert on the subject, or a lawyer, to be enlightened by it. Read it yourself and then recommend it to both high school and college students.

Leonard Levy's Origins of the Bill of Rights is a concise monograph that traces the development of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution from English common law through the American colonial period to the point of their inclusion into one of the world's premier documents. Levy uses only historical sources to make his case, leaving constitutional scholarship alone.

Levy's efforts are mostly successful and the reader will come away with a solid understanding of the types of laws the framers of the Bill of Rights had to work with when they undertook their endeavor. He is critical of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists (he seems to poke fun at Patrick Henry throughout the book) and seems to argue that we have the Bill of Rights in spite of our Founding Fathers.

One weakness of Levy is his apparent conservative innuendo regarding the differences between the time of the Bill of Rights authorship and our modern world. He laments the world of 1791 as not anticipating modern free speech issues regarding pornography (though he fails to acknowledge libel and slander laws of today). He emphasizes the militia element of the second amendment while not wholeheartedly endorsing unlimited gun ownership rights.

Levy counters his weaknesses with a particularly impressive argument regarding the fourth amendment. This, according to Levy, did not trace its roots to England or colonial times but rather was a backlash against past practice. Unreasonable searches and seizures and general warrants were common in colonial America and the fourth amendment was specifically drafted to cure this ailment.

One final weakness is the lack of a concluding chapter that would have served to tie the whole work together, but Levy's overall effort is worthwhile to any with an interest in constitutional history.

These quotes from the book should interest you.

"Americans resorted to arms in 1775 not to establish new liberties but to defend old ones" in this history of the Bill of Rights. "Unencumbered by a rigid class system, an arbitrary government, or a single established church squelching dissent, colonial Americans understood freedom in a far more comprehensive and liberal way than the English". "In colonial America, political theory, law, and religion all taught that government was limited". The book provides an analysis of the background of the Bill of Rights and of current legal understanding of each of its provisions. "The people of the United States, aided by a persistent James Madison and by traditions of freedom" supported both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights".

The theory that the Second Amendment vests only a collective right to bear arms (state militias) would only mean that soldiers are allowed to bear arms - which doesn't need a Constitutional Amendment for that! The history of the last two centuries shows that this is an individual right. To "keep and bear arms" refers to individuals; soldiers' weapons are government property. No "National Guard" soldier can keep his arms - that would be "theft of Government Property".

The book explains how the Bill of Rights had its origins in centuries old laws and customs, and Colonial experiences.

Refer also to William Weir's "A Well Regulated Militia: The Battle Over Gun Control" for more information.

All Americans cherish their rights given to them by God and our Bill of Rights. This book should be read by all people interested in the origins and formation of our Bill of Rights. This book refreshes our memory of celebrated cases in English and American History that led the way in the formation of our Bill of Rights. The Zenger case in New York became the symbol for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The Wilkes case in England challenged general warrants and the seizures of private papers; a case that would also be felt on both sides of the Atlantic. This book also enlightens us of the importance and the influence on our Bill of Rights that the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights had. We also have the oppurtunity to explore the thoughts of some of our key founding fathers, most notably James Madison. Whatever you learn from this book, the most understood fact that the reader comes out with is that Americans, even before the formation of our constitution, had the innate belief that the government was under subjection by the people, and the rights of the people could not be infringed upon by any government.

This is a very well-written and informative guide to the history and development of the Bill of Rights by one of our leading constitutional historians. It is clearly written, and can easily be followed by non-lawyers and non-historians. Nonetheless, the analysis is sophisticated.

The two parts most likely to draw attention are Levy's treatment of the Second and Ninth amendments to the Constitution. With regard to the Second, Levy joins the overwhelming number of constitutional scholars and historians who believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. And he does so unequivocally: "Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. . . . Moreover, the right to bear arms does not necessarily have a military connotation, because Pennsylvania, whose constitution of 1776 first used the phrase 'the right to bear arms,' did not even have a state militia." (pp. 134-35). Levy even criticizes Harvard professor Laurence Tribe for saying otherwise (136) -- though in fact Tribe has changed his position and now agrees with Levy. But this took place as Levy's book was in press. At any rate, revisionist writers such as Garry Wills will find little comfort in this book.

On the Ninth Amendment, Levy may annoy many who disagree with him about the Second (and vice versa). Levy argues that the Ninth Amendment was meant to protect both positive rights (e.g., voting, the presumption of innocence, etc.) and natural rights, which he identifies with the Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness." He has little patience with those who claim otherwise: "To argue that the Framers had used natural rights as a means of escaping obligations of obedience to the king but did not use natural rights 'as a source for rules of decision' is hogwash. One has only to read the state recommendations for a bill of rights to know that the natural rights philosophy seized the minds of the Framers as it had the minds of the rebellious patriots of 1776. One can also read natural rights opinions by members of the early Supreme Court to arrive at the same conclusion." (p. 255). So much for the narrow originalist theories of, for example, Robert Bork.

That the book heaps scorn on the half-baked theories of Garry Wills and Robert Bork is just a bonus, though. In substance, it is strong. The writing style is graceful. And the coverage is remarkably complete for such a slim volume. Great work, indeed.