Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a high-ranking Democrat and Harvard Law graduate, may want to learn the authors of the Constitution before attempting to change it, as he proved Tuesday to be unaware of the author of the Bill of Rights.
Schumer is one of 42 co-sponsors of a resolution that seeks to amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to oversee the spending and raising of campaign money. But during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Schumer flubbed his American history and credited the wrong Founding Father with writing the Bill of Rights.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it,” Schumer said. “He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. He would agree that to keep a democracy going, you cannot have a handful of a few who are so wealthy that they can influence the process and drown out the voices of the others.”
Jefferson, though, did not write the Bill of Rights as he was serving as the minister to France during the time of its writing and initial passage.
Instead, according to the National Archives, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, and George Mason are credited with writing and playing critical roles in passing the Bill of Rights.
“Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance,” its website states. “One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate.”
Jefferson was, however, in favor of a Bill of Rights.
If passed, Schumer’s constitutional amendment would overturn the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. While Democrats overwhelmingly view the law as a way to rein in the influence of wealthy donors and super PACs, Republicans view the proposed amendment as an attempt to “muzzle” free speech.
It is unlikely the resolution will pass, though, as it must be approved by two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House, and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
