and CFR are funded by the RockefellernFoundation. Consider: the CED’snvice chairman of the board of trusteesnis CFR member John L. Clendenin,nchairman of the board and CEO ofnBellSouth Corporation. BellSouth advertisesnLink Line free of charge in itsnphone books and refuses to pull thenads. An official “advisor” to the CEDnis William Aramony, National Chairmannof United Way of America. Vicenchairman of the CED’s Research andnPolicy Committee is none other thannDonna E. Shalala, radical feministnchancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison,nsource of Link Line.nThe CED’s manual, entitled UnfinishednAgenda, states that “profoundnchanges in family structure and stabilityncoupled with the necessity for educatingnall children are forcing society tonassume greater responsibility for thensuccessful development and educationnof children. As a first step, every communitynshould conduct a formal assessmentnof how it is addressing the needsnof children, paying particular attentionnto the barriers that prevent change.” Innother words, “society” is beingn”forced” to impose its values and itsnagenda on children, and the family andnthe church are the “barriers” to suchn”change.” United Way is ceaselesslynpraised in Unfinished Agenda as anprimary vehicle for accomplishing thisngoal.nI spent much of 1990 leading thensuccessful national fight against 2 LivenCrew’s obscene album As Nasty AsnThey Wanna Be. Success was securednnot because of lawyering skill, butnbecause the truth is relentless in exposingnand conquering evil. All who valuenthe safety and health of children wouldndo well to ascertain if the University ofnWisconsin-Madison’s assault uponnyour local community has yet begun.nAnd a complaint to United Waynwouldn’t hurt.nJohn B. Thompson is an attorney innCoral Gables, Florida.n46/CHRONICLESn’Rights’ and thenConstitutionnby Jeffrey HartnOn September 25, 1789, Congressnsubmitted to the states for ratificationnten amendments to the 1787 Constitution,nknown as the Bill of Rights.nSeldom is there much serious reflectionnon the issues involved in a “Bill ofnRights,” but there was a great deal inn1787-1789. Those Americans werenhighly informed political thinkers,nversed in the entire Western tradition.nThe author most frequently cited in thenfederalist-antifederalist debates wasnLivy, the historian of the Roman Republic;nand they knew their Locke andnMontesquieu.nTo dig right into the major question:ndoes a “Bill of Rights” violate thentheory that is at the core of the 1787nConstitution? You will note that thenfamous Preamble mentions no rights atnall in defining the goals of the newngovernment. The goals set forth arenspecific and severely practical. If thenquestion arises, as surely it would, ofnhow to choose between the goals ofn”justice” and “domestic tranquillity,”nthe Constitution answers with the deliberativenmechanism of government itnthen proceeds to set up. In other words,nthe “deliberate sense of the people” —nwhat this mechanism is sometimesncalled — operates to make the decision.nIt operates through Congress, the President,nand the courts. Under the 1787nConstitution, the “deliberate sense ofnthe people” is absolute, and in its duenoperation brooks no opposition. Indeed,nthe Constitution itself permits amendmentnin any direction the “deliberatensense” might will. Of course, the processnis so complex that the Constitutionnresists it tooth and nail.nBut is a “Bill of Rights” contradictorynto a “deliberate sense” theory of government?nMany at the time thought itnwas, and if the “Bill” had been a Frenchntheory of rights they would have beenncorrect. The “universal rights of man”nwould necessarily take precedence overnany “deliberate sense” mechanism.nJames Madison of Virginia, perhapsnour profoundest political theorist, said inneffect, “Don’t worry.” The ten amendmentsnof the Bill of Rights consist onlynof specific common-law and customarynnntraditions dating to the British revolutionnof 1688. They can be traced tonBlackstone and beyond: a “well regulatednmilitia,” no quartering of soldiers,ntrial by jury, no excessive bail. The nownfamous First Amendment, in fact, was anblow on behalf of the states, and limitednthe power of the central government:n”Congress shall make no law. . . .”nJames Madison was correct in hisnown time, and the ten amendmentsnwere quickly ratified. But was he right innthe long run?nThe Fourteenth Amendment turnednthe First Amendment upside down, bynapplying it not only to Congress but tonthe state legislatures. Madison mustnhave spun in his grave. In its originalnformulation, the First Amendmentnmeant that Congress could not pass anlaw limiting, for example, flag burning.nUnder the Fourteenth Amendment,nthis is denied to the states. So, whereasnin its original Madisonian conception,nthe First Amendment was meant as ancheck upon federal power, it has metamorphosednunder the Fourteenth, ratifiednin 1868, into a French-like “universalnright” to virtually unlimitednindividual freedom. Go-go dancingnand flag burning therefore becomen”constitutional rights.”nIt is also true that when Madisonnwrote “speech” into the First Amendmentnhe meant speech. He surely didnnot have in mind the idea that walkingndown the boulevard naked could bencalled “symbolic speech.” The profoundnconstitutional scholar WalternBerns has argued that Madison had innmind “political argument,” and was sonunderstood by those who voted for thenamendment. He did not wish to legalizenany calumny, and libel laws, fornexample, have not been held unconstitutional,nthough Justice Hugo Blackndid and Alan Dershowitz does thinknthe Constitution mandates this.nOn the vexed abortion question.nRoe V. Wade represents an usurpationnon the part of the federal judiciary, thenCourt overturning at a stroke the variednopinions of fifty legislatures. JusticenHarry Blackmun, writing for the majority,ndiscovered in the Constitution an”right” to “privacy” nowhere mentionednin it, but discernible to him inn”penumbras.” Madison would havenlaughed out loud.nAs against my argument here thatn”rights” are alien to the theory of then