This summer, Constitution Daily will be holding a virtual town hall to debate 10 issues that could be proposed as The Next 10 Amendments. The discussion will begin in late May, just like the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and end on September 17, the anniversary of when the Constitution was signed.

Every seven to 10 days, we’ll present a constitutional issue, offering historical context and related primary documents to frame the discussion. The 10 issues were chosen based on a composite of multiple public polls.

For each issue, you can share your thoughts–and offer suggestions for a potential constitutional amendment about that issue.

Then, in early September, cast your vote in a referendum on potential amendments, gathered from participant comments.

Chris Phillips, research fellow of the Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing at the University of Pennsylvania and executive director of the nonprofit organization Democracy Café, will serve as “convention moderator” and lead discussions. Perspectives from other constitutional experts will also be featured.

Here are the constitutional issues up for deliberation, along with key tentative discussion dates:

Discussions

1. May 28: Right to bear arms
2. June 5: Balanced budget amendment
3. June 14: Equal rights for all
4. June 23: Term limits for Congress
5. July 3: Strict separation of church and state
6. July 12: Limits on campaign spending by candidates for federal office
7. July 22: Federal regulation of marriage
8. July 31: Ban on burning or desecrating the American flag
9. August 9: Direct election of the president and vice president
10. August 19: Right to privacy
11. August 30: Final debate over amendments

Voting

1. September 4: Voting begins
2. September 10: Voting ends
3. September 17: Results announced

The final results of The Next 10 Amendments will be announced at the National Constitution Center’s annual Constitution Day celebration on September 17, in conjunction with our national live chat with constitutional scholars and educators.

This summer, join the conversation—and see how “We the People” would amend our Constitution.

On May 26, 1775, Hancock was named as the presiding officer over the Second Continental Congress, which was meeting in Philadelphia to discuss the military threat posed by the British. A little more than a year later, Hancock was the first to sign the document declaring independence.

Here are 10 facts about the man whose name is now synonymous with impressive signatures.

1. Hancock was a wealthy guy. He was from Massachusetts and his family had money, which he inherited when his uncle died. In fact, Hancock may have been the richest man in New England when he inherited a shipping fortune.

2. He was a bright student. Young Hancock graduated from Harvard at the age of 17. He was also a quick learner in the business world.

3. Hancock should have been a Loyalist, but he wasn’t. With his wealth and social standing, Hancock should have been a leading member of an elite group that didn’t want independence. Instead, he sympathized with people like John and Samuel Adams, who were patriots.

4. John Hancock, smuggler? Well, he may have been an importer, too, but goods like tea that arrived in New England on Hancock’s ships may have escaped paying a duty. The suspicions led the British to seize Hancock’s ship, Liberty, which started a riot. John Adams got Hancock off the hook from the smuggling charges.

5. Hancock also had a role in the Boston Tea Party incident. While Hancock wasn’t on a ship tossing tea overboard, he was at meetings when outrage was vented at the British. He riled up the crowd with a famous statement: “Let every man do what is right in his own eyes.”

6. The British really didn’t like Hancock. The British troops that set out to Lexington and Concord in 1775 may have been hunting for Hancock and his friend, John Adams, as well as for military supplies that were stored for militia use. Hancock had to be talked out of taking the battlefield against the redcoats. And his arrest was ordered by the British after the battles.

7. Hancock was a behind-the-scenes force early in the American Revolution. Hancock raised money for the Revolution, he helped secure troops, and he played a role in getting naval forces organized. But a homesick Hancock left Congress in 1777 to return to Massachusetts.

8. He was the longtime governor of Massachusetts. Hancock was elected in 1780 to lead his state and was its governor for most of the remaining years of his life. He was immensely popular in his home state.

9. Hancock wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Hancock had health issues by 1787 and wasn’t in the Massachusetts delegation. But he played a key role in his state’s ratification of the Constitution, when he overcame his own objections about the lack of a Bill of Rights to urge its passage.

10. What’s the deal with the signature? It’s not true that Hancock signed the Declaration in a big way to taunt the King of England. The legend goes that Hancock stated that “King George will be able to read that!” In reality, Hancock was the first to sign in a matter fitting for the president of the Congress. And only one other person was in the room when he signed it, unlike that famous painting that shows a gaggle of patriots witnessing the event. Hancock did take a big risk: His signature was evidence of treason if things didn’t go well in the war!

Recent Historical Stories

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison
10 birthday facts about President Andrew Jackson
10 cool Washington facts on George’s real birthday

The whole Guantanamo issue is complex and far from settled. On Thursday, the president made a new push to close the prison, where a majority of its residents are on a hunger strike.

But on Tuesday, the AP said the Defense Department wants $450 million to spend over an 8- to 10-year period to upgrade and maintain the prison. (The Pentagon is part of Obama’s executive branch.)

Congress, of course, will need to approve the request as part of the overall budget process.

By some estimates, it costs about $800,000 a year to maintain each prisoner at Guantanamo. President Obama put that number at closer to $1 million per prisoner in his speech on Thursday.

Currently, about 100 of the 166 prisoners there are on a hunger strike, with about 20 being force-fed by guards.

Outside the U.S., the costs extend beyond dollars—a point President Obama made in April when he indicated another effort will be made to close the prison and move (or release) its current inmates.

“Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” Obama said at a White House press conference last month. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

The president in April also addressed some of the legalities of keeping people indefinitely at Guantanamo.

“The notion that we’re going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man’s land in perpetuity,” he said, “the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried—that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.”

But a majority of Americans still approve of the prison, according to recent polls. A Fox News poll this week says 62 percent of people want the prison to remain open as a facility to maintain suspects. A Huffington Post poll put that number at 54 percent in early May, while a Washington Post poll last year had the number closer to 70 percent.

And that includes a bipartisan majority within Congress, which has blocked past efforts by Obama to shutter Guantanamo.

Ultimately under the Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings for Guantanamo.

Lawmakers have made sure budgetary provisions prevent funding for the transfer of prisoners to facilities in the mainland United States, or money to pay for trials at Guantanamo.

At least half of the current 166 prisoners could be released under certain circumstances, if their countries would take them back and guarantee that tabs are kept on them. On Thursday, President Obama said he would lift a moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, to be reviewed on a case-by case-basis.

But there are concerns the released detainees could resume anti-American activities. One U.S. government study said that 16 percent of released detainees re-engaged in terrorist activities or associated with terrorists.

Peter Bergen, the director of National Security Studies at the New America Foundation, said in a recent CNN article that his foundation’s review of news articles came up with a number close to 3 percent for released detainees who took part in terrorism; another 3.5 percent were suspected of terrorism.

For the other 80 prisoners, they will most likely have to go through a court system of some type, or be released.

Some top Democrats want to join forces with President Obama to close the prison.

Representative Adam Smith of Washington, a top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Tuesday that Guantanamo will “continue to symbolize an unjust attempt to avoid the rule of law and to undermine the United States’ moral standing in defending its values and protecting human rights.”

But many Congress members share deep concerns about national security issues and the transfer of prisoners to U.S. soil.

A longer-term issue is the idea of some type of due process for the detainees who have been held indefinitely and may go before a review board. That process could still happen at Guantanamo or at a domestic U.S. prison—or not at all in some cases, which brings up a whole set of constitutional issues.

On Thursday, President Obama said, “We will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.” But he also acknowledged there wasn’t a current solution for detainees who “we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted—for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law.”

The president said, “I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.” But he didn’t offer specifics.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Constitution Check: Can news-gathering be prosecuted as a crime?
National Constitution Center to display original copy of the Bill of Rights
Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?
An IRS official, the Fifth Amendment and a Congress controversy

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.

For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists — our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no functioning law.

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch – avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad.  And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:

“The Justice Department’s decision to treat routine news-gathering efforts as evidence of criminality is extremely troubling and corrodes time-honored understandings between the public and the government about the role of the free press.”

– Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a statement issued May 21 that was quoted in various news stories, regarding an FBI document filed in court to justify a search warrant of emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The document suggested that Rosen may have acted “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” with an official who allegedly leaked secret information to Rosen.

“To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job—seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public—deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based.”

– Dana Milbank, Washington Post columnist, in an op-ed article on May 22, titled “Criminalizing journalism.”

“If you’re asking me whether the president believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no.”

– White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a briefing for reporters on May 21, quoted in various news stories.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

Long ago, America’s press and government officials worked out a rough bargain under the First Amendment: The press would be free to publish information that the government would prefer to be withheld, but the government would retain the option of trying to punish those who leaked such information illegally.

The bargain has generally meant that reporters would not themselves be prosecuted as criminals for publishing unauthorized leaks, but that they could be investigated and, indeed, might even have to go to jail if they refused to identify their sources. It is an understanding that has left both sides not entirely trusting of each other.

What has stirred even greater distrust in recent days was the revelation that the FBI was treating a Fox News reporter as a potential subject of criminal prosecution, at least for purposes of a formal request to a judge for a search warrant in a sweeping investigation of the source of leaks to the reporter about North Korea’s missile program.

Reporters, of course, have gone to jail for refusing to obey court orders that they had to disclose sources of stories that the government was investigating to find the source. But, so far as anyone can remember, no reporter has ever been charged with a crime for publishing a leaked bit of information, even of the most sensitive national security data. That is what the FBI affidavit in the case of James Rosen seemed to suggest, although the White House press secretary has now sought to head off such speculation.

Most of the recent investigations by the government in high-profile news leak cases have involved the publication of information about national defense or national security, and there is no doubt that some officials in the government believe that the Espionage Act, which makes it a federal crime to release classified data, also applies to the conduct of the press in publishing such data. But that is a view that has never been supported by a majority of the Supreme Court.

In fact, in the famous Pentagon Papers decision in 1971, two members of the court—Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black—said explicitly that the Espionage Act does not apply to the press in any way. Whether or not that represented a majority view then or since, it is an understanding that has generally led prosecutors not to try to bring criminal charges against reporters or publications that printed classified information.

But the Supreme Court has also made clear that the First Amendment does not give the press a constitutional right to print classified information. Less than a year after the Pentagon Papers ruling, the Supreme Court said in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes that “it has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.”

Elsewhere in that same decision, however, the court said it was not suggesting “that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection,” and it added that “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” The court elaborated on that somewhat, eight years later, in the case of Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia.

In that decision, the court ruled that the press shared with the public the right to sit in on government meetings or court sessions—so long as those traditionally had been opened to the public. The court, however, has never spelled out fully just what it meant by saying that the First Amendment provided “some protection for seeking out the news.”

Clearly, the prospect of facing criminal charges for “seeking out the news” about some classified government program or activity would be seen by the press as a threat to its news-gathering operations.

Whether such a threat ever will arise, no one can know at this point. On that, the press may have to wait until, perhaps some day, an adventuresome prosecutor decides that a reporter did act as a “co-conspirator” or as an “aider or abettor” to a leaker of such information, and attempted to pursue a criminal charge along those lines. That is not a day, however, to which the press ought to look forward eagerly; the outcome would not be predictable, whatever past experience has shown.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
National Constitution Center to display original copy of the Bill of Rights
Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?
Can President Obama influence the public debate on drone attacks?

Lois G. Lerner, the head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations office, said in advance of Wednesday’s testimony she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer questions from House members during committee hearings about the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lerner then appeared before the committee, read a prepared statement, and said she was invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.

“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said in her statement. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

“Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I’ve done something wrong. I have not,” she said. “One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.”

Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, quickly insisted that Lerner had to answer questions from the committee, and pointed to opening remarks by Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland.

“Mr. Cummings said that we should run this like a courtroom and I agree with him,” said Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor. “She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.”

Cummings then  made his point.

“With all respect for my good friend Mr. Gowdy, I said I would like to see it run like a federal court,” Cummings said. “Unfortunately, this is not a federal court and she does have a right and I think we have to adhere to that.”

Then, a few hours after the hearing, Committee chairman Darrell Issa told Politico that Lerner lost her Fifth Amendment  rights by making her statement–about having the rights.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told Politico. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, explained to New York magazine why Lerner was within her rights. (Duane made his comments after the hearing ended and before Issa made his announcement.)

“When [someone is] involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves,” Duane said.

He also believes that “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.”

That theory will now get tested, since Issa indicated he may call Lerner back to testify again, without the ability to cite the Fifth Amendment.

Stan Brand, a former general counsel for the House of Representatives, told Politico that Lerner could have an issue if she waived her rights in prior appearances before Congress.

Prior to Lerner’s appearance, her attorney, William W. Taylor III, wrote to Issa and explained why his client was taking the Fifth Amendment.

Taylor said that prior claims by Issa that Lerner had provided misleading information to Congress on four occasions left his client without another option.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” Taylor said.

And in a statement to the Washington Post, Taylor said his client didn’t waive her Fifth Amendment rights.

“The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of the wrongdoing with which she is accused,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Post.

An article from USA Today lists people who were government employees or private citizens who’ve been called before Congress and “taken the Fifth.”

Officials from the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the General Services Administration have invoked the Fifth in recent years. Celebrities such as White House gate-crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi and baseball star Mark McGwire also declined to answer questions before Congress.

The various rights and protections under the Fifth Amendment make it one of the most powerful tools in the Bill of Rights.

In addition to protecting people from incriminating themselves, the Fifth Amendment provides for grand juries; protects people from being tried twice for the same crime; and provides due process under the law.

In 1966, the Supreme Court found, as part of its historic Miranda v. Arizona decision, that the right to protect against self-incriminating testimony existed outside of a courtroom.

“There can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves,” the court said.

A later Supreme Court case, Ohio v. Reiner, stated that the Fifth Amendment “protects the innocent as well as the guilty” and that any information “which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant” is valid cause to invoke Fifth Amendment rights.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

National Constitution Center to display original copy of the Bill of Rights

Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?

Can President Obama influence the public debate on drone attacks?

After being approved by Congress, this rare original copy of the Bill of Rights was signed by Vice President John Adams (president of the Senate) and dispatched by President George Washington to consider for ratification in 1789. The New York Public Library acquired the document in 1896, when John S. Kennedy – a trustee of The New York Public Library – donated it along with other items he purchased from Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet, a noted surgeon and collector of Americana. The Emmet Collection has been accessible to researchers ever since, currently in the Manuscripts and Archives Division. The Library last displayed the document several decades ago, and has never displayed it for an extended period of time for preservation reasons. As part of the historic agreement, the Center announced today it will display the document to the general public for three years starting in the fall of 2014.

“This is a win for Pennsylvania, New York and the citizens of the United States,” said Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett. “For the first time in decades, this historic document will be seen by ‘We the People,’ the people who were granted these inalienable rights and privileges that we are still guided by today.”

“This landmark agreement makes public one of the most important documents in the nation’s history, an over 200-year-old, original copy of the Bill of Rights,” said New York Public Library President Tony Marx. “The document has been expertly preserved at the Library for over a century, leaving it in prime condition and ready to inspire and educate the public now and in the future.”

More about the Bill of Rights

Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?

FAQ: Basic facts about the Bill of Rights

Many of the rights and liberties Americans cherish —such as speech, religion, and the right to fair trial—were not enumerated in the original Constitution drafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 but were included in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1791. By displaying this American treasure, the Center will provide visitors of all ages with a better understanding of the Constitution, the essential American freedoms it protects, and its enduring relevance in our daily lives. The document will complement the Center’s current exhibits and artifacts—including the popular Signers’ Hall and its first public printing of the Constitution—and strengthen the museum’s ability to tell the story of America’s founding in an engaging way.

“This is a milestone moment for the Center as we look towards the next decade as the museum of ‘We the People,’” said National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. “We are thrilled to be able to offer visitors the opportunity to experience one of America’s founding documents up close. In addition to exploring the historic value of this priceless document, our exhibition will provide a national forum for three years of discussion, education, and constitutional debate about contemporary issues related to the Bill of Rights.”

“The Center is working proactively to display and interpret America’s most significant historic documents,” said National Constitution Center Chairman of the Executive Committee Doug DeVos. “Today marks a shining example of civic-minded cooperation between institutions for the benefit of all citizens, and should serve as a model for future partnerships.”

About the Document

One of the fundamental achievements of America’s founding era, Congress commissioned 14 official copies of the Bill of Rights—one for the federal government and one for each of the original 13 states, which President George Washington dispatched to the states to consider for ratification. Four states are missing their copies —Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Two unidentified copies are known to have survived; one is in the Library of Congress, and the other is in the collection of The New York Public Library, which is the copy that will be displayed at the Center. The Center is currently working closely with The New York Public Library, who has contracted the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to build an encasement similar to those built for the Charters of Freedom at the National Archives, to properly display the document.

About The New York Public Library

The New York Public Library is a free provider of education and information for the people of New York and beyond. With 91 locations—including research and branch libraries—throughout the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island, the Library offers free materials, computer access, classes, exhibitions, programming and more to everyone from toddlers to scholars, and has seen record numbers of attendance and circulation in recent years. The New York Public Library serves more than 18 million patrons who come through its doors annually and millions more around the globe who use its resources at www.nypl.org. To offer this wide array of free programming, The New York Public Library relies on both public and private funding. Learn more about how to support the Library at nypl.org/support.

About the National Constitution Center

The National Constitution Center is an interactive hands-on museum, national town hall, and civic education headquarters celebrating the United States Constitution and the story of “We the People.” Located on Independence Mall in Historic Philadelphia, the Center illuminates constitutional ideals and inspires active citizenship through a state-of-the-art museum experience, including hundreds of interactive exhibits, films, and rare artifacts; must-see feature exhibitions; the internationally acclaimed, 360-degree theatrical performance Freedom Rising; and the iconic Signers’ Hall, where visitors can sign the Constitution alongside 42 life-size, bronze statues of the Founding Fathers. As America’s town hall, the Center engages diverse, distinguished leaders of government, public policy, journalism and scholarship in timely public discussions and debates. The Center also houses the Annenberg Center for Education and Outreach, the national hub for constitutional education, which offers cutting-edge civic learning resources both onsite and online. Join us at the museum of “We the People” as we celebrate our 10-year anniversary in 2013. For more information, call 215.409.6700 or visit constitutioncenter.org.

The Bill of Rights guarantees essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states.

Take our quiz below. (If you can’t see the quiz, use this link: http://ncc.polldaddy.com/s/can-you-pass-a-basic-10-question-quiz-on-bill-of-rights)

Recent Historical Stories

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison
10 birthday facts about President Andrew Jackson
10 cool Washington facts on George’s real birthday

What is the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states.

As a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

How many original copies of the Bill of Rights exist? Where are they?

Congress commissioned 14 official copies of the Bill of Rights—one for the federal government and one for each of the original 13 states, which President George Washington dispatched to the states to consider for ratification.

Today, most of these original copies reside at the archives of their respective states. The federal government’s copy is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.—alongside the original, handwritten copies of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Four states are missing their copies—Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Two unidentified copies are known to have survived; one is in the Library of Congress, and the other is in the collection of The New York Public Library, which is the copy that will be displayed at the National Constitution Center.

North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights was missing for nearly 140 years after being stolen by a Union soldier during the Civil War. The National Constitution Center played a key role in the recovery of the document in 2003, including assisting in an FBI sting operation.

Why wasn’t the Bill of Rights included in the original Constitution?

Toward the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, proposed adding a bill of rights, which would, he argued, give great quiet to the people” and “might be prepared in a few hours.”

Though it might be surprising today, the state delegations unanimously rejected Mason’s proposal. Some delegates reasoned that a federal bill of rights was unnecessary because most state constitutions already included some form of guaranteed rights; others said that outlining certain rights would imply that those were the only rights reserved to the people. However, historian Richard Beeman, a Trustee of the National Constitution Center, has pointed out a much more prosaic reason the delegates were so skeptical: They had spent four arduous months of contentious debate in a hot, stuffy room, and were anxious to avoid anything that would prolong the convention. They wanted to go home, so they took a pass. A bill of rights was overruled.

The Constitution was signed by 39 delegates on September 17, 1787, at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall, in Philadelphia. Three delegates were present but refused to sign, in part because of the absence of a bill of rights: George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry.

After the convention, the absence of a bill of rights emerged as a central part of the ratification debates. Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification, viewed its absence as a fatal flaw. Several states ratified the Constitution on the condition that a bill of rights would be promptly added, and many even offered suggestions for what to include.

Pauline Maier, author of Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788, noted of these proponents of a bill of rights:

“Without their determined opposition, the first ten amendments would not have become a part of the Constitution for later generations to transform into a powerful instrument for the defense of American freedom. … Their example might well be their greatest gift to posterity.”

Who wrote the Bill of Rights?

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, James Madison, who had already helped draft much of the original Constitution, took up the task of drafting a bill of rights. Madison largely drew from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was primarily written by George Mason in 1776 two months before the Declaration of Independence; he also drew from amendments suggested by state ratifying conventions.

Madison drafted 19 amendments, which he proposed to Congress on June 8, 1789. The House of Representatives narrowed those down to 17; then the Senate, with the approval of the House, narrowed them down to 12. These 12 were approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification.

When was the Bill of Rights ratified?

The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.

The first two amendments in the 12 that Congress proposed to the states were rejected: The first dealt with apportioning representation in the House of Representatives; the second prevented members of Congress from voting to change their pay until the next session of Congress. This original “Second Amendment” was finally added to the Constitution as the 27th Amendment, more than 200 years later.

Bill of Rights Day is observed on December 15 each year, as called for by a joint resolution of Congress approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941.

Where was the Bill of Rights written?

The Bill of Rights was drafted in New York City, where the federal government was operating out of Federal Hall in 1789. (The Declaration of Independence and the original, unamended Constitution were written and signed in Philadelphia.)

Why is the Bill of Rights so important?

The Bill of Rights represents the first step that “We the People” took in amending the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” The original, unamended Constitution was a remarkable achievement, establishing a revolutionary structure of government that put power in the hands of the people. The Bill of Rights built on that foundation, protecting our most cherished American freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and due process of law. For more than two centuries—as we have exercised, restricted, expanded, tested, and debated those freedoms—the Bill of Rights has shaped and been shaped by what it means to be American.

Editor’s Note: The National Constitution Center announced today that starting in 2014, it will display an American treasure: one of the 12 surviving copies of the Bill of Rights. Learn more here.

More about the Bill of Rights

National Constitution Center to display original copy of the Bill of Rights

Can you pass a Bill of Rights quiz?

On Monday, news started coming out of Washington that the Obama administration would let the Defense Department handle drone operations in Yemen, where the U.S. is engaged in counterterrorism activities with local forces.

The news agency Reuters said it was unclear how drone operations would be handled in Pakistan, where the existence of the program isn’t officially acknowledged.

The moves are seen by some as a way to push the debate about drones, lethal force, and their use on foreign and American citizens into a public forum that can be better managed by the White House.

President Obama will be discussing the rationale for the drone operations in a nationally broadcast speech this Thursday, in his first detailed explanation of the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder said the president would offer more transparency about drone policy.

On Tuesday, the International Crisis Group published a report that criticized the U.S. and Pakistan for its drone policies.

The nonpartisan group asked the U.S. to “develop a rigorous legal framework for the use of drones that defines clear roles for the executive, legislative and judicial branches and introduces a meaningful level of regular judicial and congressional oversight.”

Those aren’t novel ideas in Washington, where the secret policy decisions involving drones have been a hot-button issue for several years.

The death of al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011, reportedly in a CIA drone strike in Yemen, was the first time a drone attack deliberately targeted and killed an American citizen. It set off a fierce debate about the constitutionality of such an action.

Those issues include whether drone attacks overseas on American citizens violate Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Attorney General Holder said in March 2012 the administration’s justification for killing U.S. citizens abroad rested on a determination that the person poses an “imminent threat of violent attack.”

Related Link: Read Holder’s entire speech

“The evaluation of whether an individual presents an ‘imminent threat’ incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States,” Holder said.

A Justice Department memo obtained by NBC in February 2013 shed more light on the government’s policy.

A kill order can be issued against an American citizen overseas if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” There doesn’t need to be “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo says.

An “informed, high-level” U.S. government official can determine if a targeted American citizen has been “recently” involved in planning a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union have tried to obtain the Justice Department orders justifying the killing of American citizens with drones, but a judge was unable to compel the Obama administration to release the information.

Recent Drone Stories

Forget about drones: Are robots the next privacy threat?
Six things you may not know about the killer drone controversy
States move to tackle drone privacy issues on their own
Constitution Check: Could the president legally order a drone strike inside the U.S.?

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon said in January, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”

In the U.S., one public opinion poll shows widespread support for using drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, with much less support if the suspect happens to be an American citizen.

A March 2013 Gallup survey showed that while 65 percent of Americans approved the use of drones overseas to kill foreign suspected terrorists, only 41 percent approved of fatal attacks on Americans overseas who are terror suspects. Only 13 percent approved the use of drones against American citizens who are terror suspects living within the U.S.

A Fox News poll in March showed different results, with 60 percent of those polled approving of attacks on U.S. citizens abroad that are suspected terrorists.

In 2012, Pew Research conducted a global survey on how other countries view the U.S. drone policy in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Out of 20 major nations, 19 countries disapproved of the American policy. Only in India did more people approve of the U.S. drone attacks than disapprove. And in 17 nations, a majority of people polled disapproved of the U.S. drone program.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.