Bill of Rights

Why James Madison Wanted Greater Limits on States' Rights

The “father of the Constitution” worried about federal and state overreach.

Damon Root | 8.6.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Illustration: National Archives and Records Administration/Midjourney)

In its 1833 decision in Barron v. Baltimore, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed something about the American constitutional order that had been widely understood since the founding. Namely, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and placed no limits on the authority of the states.

The First Amendment was actually quite explicit about it. "Congress shall make no law," it reads, "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Under the original Constitution, in other words, a state government was free to make laws that abridged the rights of speech, press, religion, and assembly without raising any First Amendment problems. Unless its own state constitution said otherwise, a state was free to impose such restrictive laws within its own state borders.

You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.

LinkedIn

This field........

© Reason.com