Throughout 2012, we’ll be celebrating the 225th anniversary of the Constitution. But the Constitution drafted and signed in 1787 was just the beginning–since then, “We the People” have amended the Constitution 27 times.

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791). Here’s what you need to know:

WHAT IT DOES

The 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights guarantee essential rights and civil liberties:

• The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition.
• The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
• The Third Amendment prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers.
• The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• The Fifth Amendment prohibits people from being subjected to double jeopardy or being forced to testify against themselves and ensures that “life, liberty, or property” may only be taken through due process of law.
• The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a fair trial by jury.
• The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in civil cases.
• The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
• The Ninth Amendment emphasizes that certain rights being listed in the Constitution does not mean those are the only rights that belong to the people.
• The 10th Amendment states that any powers not granted to the federal government is left to the states and the people.

WHY IT WAS ADDED

One key debate surrounding the creation of the U.S. Constitution was the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Several delegates at the Constitutional Convention were concerned that without a Bill of Rights, our most important rights would be unprotected. Others felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and that outlining certain rights would imply that those were the only rights reserved to the people. By the end of the convention, a Bill of Rights was overruled.

The Constitution, sans Bill of Rights, was signed by 39 delegates on September 17, 1787, at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Three other delegates were present but refused to sign–in part because of the absence of a Bill of Rights: Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia.

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

The task for drafting the Bill of Rights fell to James Madison, who had already helped draft much of the original Constitution. He compiled all of the suggestions and drafted a proposal of 12 amendments.

The first two amendments in Madison’s proposal were rejected: the first dealt with apportioning representation; the second prevented members of Congress from voting to change their own compensation. This original “Second Amendment” was finally added to the Constitution as the 27th Amendment, more than 200 years after it was proposed.

The objections of the “dissenters,” the three men who refused to sign the Constitution, contributed to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Pauline Maier, author of the book Ratification, noted:

“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.”

WORD-FOR-WORD

Celebrate the 225th anniversary of the Constitution and civic holidays and milestones throughout the year! Download the National Constitution Center’s 2012 civic calendar here.

Holly Munson is a programs coordinator at the National Constitution Center and the assistant editor of Constitution Daily.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Pot luck? States push Obama for legal marijuana ruling
Constitution Check: Should gay Americans be afraid of the Supreme Court?
The 14th Amendment’s possible role in raising the debt ceiling

We carefully considered the personalities and contributions of our key founders to decide which position and Hall of Famer suited each one best. This time-consuming process led to many heated debates and resulted in at least one missing person. OK, who are we kidding–we made the whole thing up. Have fun and Happy Baseball Season/225th Anniversary!

Manager: George Washington

Who better to lead our team of founders onto the field than the man who led the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and served as President of the Constitutional Convention and the first President of the United States? Washington was a gifted leader who surrounded himself with talented individuals and maximized that talent to obtain favorable results. For those reasons, Washington is our pick to be manager of our team and our Connie Mack, the legendary Philadelphia Athletics manager who won five World Series titles and nine American League Pennants in 50 years by assembling teams known as much for their baseball intelligence as their athletic ability.

Pitcher: James Madison

Madison may be a surprising pick to start on the mound for our team given his demeanor and appearance, which would make him seem more likely to write about the sport than to play it. However, Greg Maddux reminds us that a person does not have to look like the Incredible Hulk to be a dominant player. Just as Maddux dominated hitters during his career, Madison dominated early American politics; his powerful opening pitch for the Constitutional Convention was a thoughtful treatise called Vices of the Political System of the United States, and his vision helped frame the debates that emerged in the Constitutional Convention. He also helped interpret the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, was a leader throughout the ratification process, pushed for the addition of the Bill of Rights, and served as the fourth president of the United States. Not bad for a guy who was only 5’4”.

Catcher: Benjamin Franklin

The exploits of this printer/scientist/statesman are so fantastic that they may seem the work of fiction. Franklin ran away to Philadelphia, were he became a successful printer. He became so wealthy printing the Pennsylvania Gazette and Poor Richard’s Almanac that he was able to retire before his 44th birthday. He spent 18 years in England as a colonial representative before returning to America following the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Sometime during all of this, he found time to “discover” electricity with his famous kite experiment. Because Franklin’s life and personality unite the material of legend and reality, he is best represented by a hybrid of Crash Davis, the aging catcher brought in to guide the young upstart pitcher (and later fictionalized in the 1988 film Bull Durham), and Yankee catcher and sage Yogi Berra, whose famous quotes rival anything Franklin published in Poor Richard’s Almanac.

First Base: John Dickinson

Dickinson was a great early American statesmen. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress but did not sign the Declaration of Independence, desiring reconciliation with Britain over war. He also was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention but was forced to leave before the Constitution was signed due to illness (his colleague George Read signed for him in absentia). Although Dickinson enjoyed a long and successful career in American politics, he is often overshadowed by his peers. In this way Dickinson is our George Sisler, who is often overshadowed by the likes of Lou Gehrig, despite that fact that Sisler hit .400 for a season twice in his career, had a record 41-game hitting streak in 1922, and held the record for most hits in a single season (257) until 2004. Also, just as Dickinson missed that last day of the Constitutional Convention, Sisler missed a season in the prime of his career due to illness.

Second Base: James Wilson

Wilson was a man of both successes and failures. He enjoyed a successful career as a politician and lawyer, but also died a debtor due to huge losses in land speculation. Wilson was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For all his virtues and vices, Wilson is our Rogers Hornsby, a supremely talented player with whom teammates also struggled to get along and whose career was marred by his greatest vice: gambling.

Third Base: Gouvernor Morris

Few of the founders could match Morris in stature or personality. At about 6’4”, the burly Morris stood above the rest and was known to throw his considerable weight around during the debates. The primary architect of the Preamble and a key member of the Committee on Style, Governor Morris frequently made his opinions known, much like another favorite Philadelphian; Mike Schmidt.

Shortstop: Roger Sherman

Sherman is the only founder to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Association, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. He is also responsible for the Connecticut Compromise, which provided a necessary breakthrough for the fledgling convention. For his longevity and his role in “saving” the Constitutional Convention, Sherman is our Cal Ripken, who was praised for saving baseball after the 1994–95 players’ strike with his pursuit of Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games played streak.

Outfield: George Mason

The leader of the dissenters, Mason is our Curt Flood. Mason participated in the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the document on Sept. 17 because he felt it did not do enough to protect the individual rights of Americans. Many of his grievances were later addressed with the addition of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, Flood risked his career by challenging Major League Baseball’s reserve clause by suing after he was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies in 1969. Like Mason, Flood’s protest eventually led to a major change in the institution he protested against.

Outfield: Alexander Hamilton

What he lacked in physical stature, Hamilton made up for in intellectual power. Hamilton was regarded as brilliant in his own time, but his attitude, which bordered on pompous, occasionally rubbed his peers the wrong way. Known as a man of great style, Hamilton, the lone New Yorker to sign the Constitution, is our Mel Ott, another New Yorker with style, power, and his own unique stance.

Outfield: Jonathan Dayton

Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey was the youngest delegate to sign the Constitution. He reportedly showed up late to the deliberations and was woefully underprepared. He frequently interjected himself into debates that were over his head and was not necessarily well regarded by his fellow delegates. He later was embroiled in a controversy with Aaron Burr to annex parts of the Western territories. Dayton is our Shoeless Joe Jackson, the famous Chicago White Sox slugger who was banned from baseball for his role in the 1919 scandal that saw the White Sox throw the World Series. Of course, like Dayton, the level of Jackson’s participation is still a matter of debate.

But wait, the fun doesn’t stop here. You can also take this quiz to figure out which Constitution framer you resemble.

Michael Simzak is the Youth Programs Coordinator at the National Constitution Center and the official sports writer for Constitution Daily.

There have long been partisan, political and theological divides on issues involving women’s health, insurance mandates, workplace privacy and contraception. Last week they ran a collision course over the dispute on whether insurance coverage for contraception could be required for female employees at organizations with religious affiliations. Can we talk about contraception? And is this the role of our government?

On Friday, after several days of escalating partisan and ideological rhetoric, the White House announced a new policy largely hailed by Democrats as a compromise but condemned by Republicans as an overhanded infringement on the right of religious institutions and the doctrine they follow. Reasonable minds can passionately disagree, and both sides are quick to claim the basis of their argument lies in the Constitution.

For decades, liberal groups have claimed contraception coverage is an issue of gender equality in employer-provided health care. Conservatives however, consider this a violation of the First Amendment, infringing on their religious liberties.

The First Amendment’s establishment clause “prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.”

The question of mandating coverage for contraception by organizations with religious affiliations certainly pushes buttons on both sides of the issue. But in a time of political gridlock, ballooning deficits and record unemployment, it can hardly be reasoned that Congress and the President arguing over contraception is what our founding fathers had in mind when they adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791.

The First Amendment guarantees us all the freedom to practice any religion we choose and prevents others from denying that basic right. But in the end, isn’t the use of contraceptives one of personal choice, not that of employers or politicians? Maybe the question shouldn’t be can we talk about contraception? But rather, should we? Let us know what you think.

Alison Young is the Vice President of Public Engagement at the National Constitution Center.

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, so 2012 marks the 225th anniversary of this remarkable document. We celebrate September 17 as Constitution Day, but notable events took place throughout 1787 leading up to the historic signing.

January 6, 1787: North Carolina becomes the first state of the year (and fifth overall) to elect its delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

February 21, 1787: The Congress of the Confederation, still the nation’s chief legislative body, passes a resolution in favor of the Philadelphia Convention.

March 14, 1787: Fearing that a new constitution will be biased against smaller states, Rhode Island decides not to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is the only one of the original 13 states not represented.

May 25, 1787: The Constitutional Convention is scheduled to open on May 14, but only a few delegates have arrived by that date. A quorum from seven states is not present until May 25. Virginian James Madison uses the intervening period to draft a proposed outline for the Constitution. Known as the Virginia Plan, it is presented to the convention on May 29 and forms the foundation for the group’s discussions.

June 23, 1787: Amid debate surrounding the make-up of the legislative bodies, the executive, and the judiciary, the convention establishes a five-member Committee of Detail to draft a constitution based on Madison’s plan.

July 26, 1787: The convention adjourns to await the report of the Committee of Detail.

August 6, 1787: The committee presents a draft of the Constitution to the reconvened convention. This draft is the basis for the final Constitution.

September 5, 1787: With debate concluded, the convention forms a Committee of Style to produce a final version of the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris—a delegate representing Pennsylvania—condenses the preliminary draft into seven articles and arranges the stirring Preamble, replacing the opening phrase, “We the People of New Hampshire, Massachusetts . . . [and the other original states]” with the introduction “We the People of the United States.”

September 17, 1787: Morris’ document is presented to the convention. Forty-two of the 55 delegates are present. Of these, 39 sign the Constitution, beginning with the president of the convention and the first president of the United States, George Washington.

The story does not end with the signing. Support for the Constitution remains split in state legislatures and among the population; some are dismayed that the final document has no Bill of Rights, others fear a too-strong (or too-weak) central government. In October 1787, Alexander Hamilton publishes the first of his Federalist Papers in support of the newly signed Constitution. His arguments, and the inspiring power of the document, prove persuasive. Three states—Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey—ratify the Constitution by the end of 1787. New Hampshire’s ratification in June 1788, the ninth state to do so, makes the Constitution the law of the land. Today—225 years and 27 amendments later—it remains powerfully so.

Stay tuned all year as the National Constitution Center celebrates the 225th anniversary of the Constitution, culminating in festivities around Constitution Day 2012 in September.

Christopher Munden is a freelance writer for the National Constitution Center. He has read every word of the Committee of Detail’s various drafts of the Constitution.

In Philadelphia 225 years ago, the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Now Pennsylvania is essentially drafting  a second Constitution as courts across the state determine what rules should govern social networks.

Pennsylvania leads the nation in legal disputes involving social networks and the Web. These cases include a teacher who was suspended because of a Facebook post about her frustrations with her students, a law student who was criticized for running a website where men fantasized about raping particular female students, and a Pittsburgh Pirates mascot who was fired for a Facebook post disagreeing with his employers’ decision to extend certain managers’ contracts.

The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of free speech and privacy. But social networks pose challenges to those rights. Straight-A students have been expelled from school for criticizing their teachers on Myspace. Thirty-five percent of companies turn down job seekers based on posts from social networks, especially photos that show the person holding a glass of wine or beer.

When employees used to complain about their jobs in discussions around the water cooler or at the local bar, bosses rarely found out or took action. But now workers are fired for venting on the web, including a 16-year-old who complained that her job was boring and an emergency worker who posted a cartoon about a clueless doctor.

Courts considering social network cases have had to balance issues of free speech, privacy, and potential harms. The tensions between protecting rights and preventing harms were highlighted when an eighth-grader in Bethlehem created a Teacher Sux website with reasons why his algebra teacher should die, asking for $20 “to help pay for the hitman.”

The student was expelled and the state Supreme Court said that, even though the website had been created in the boy’s home and had specifically said that teachers shouldn’t read it, the student could be punished since the website upset the algebra teacher. A dissenting judge in the case argued that the boy’s website was protected by the First Amendment and pointed out that the school had never perceived the boy’s actions as a real threat. What’s more, said the judge, “This type of sick humor can be found in some of today’s popular television programs, such as South Park.”

In two other cases from Pennsylvania schools, federal appellate judges were more protective of students’ online posts, even when they were degrading to teachers or misleading about them. The judges quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to free speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Student speech can only be punished if it substantially disrupts the functioning of the school.

Employees have fewer protections than public school students and can generally only seek reinstatement if they blew the whistle on harmful practices or protested about working conditions. In the Pittsburgh Pirates case, the mascot won back his job that allowed him to race, while dressed as a pierogi, during the fifth-inning stretch because he was not terminated in compliance with the team’s human resources procedures.

Other countries are more protective. Finland already bans employers from Googling applicants. Germany is considering a law that would forbid employers from using information from social networks in the processes of hiring and or assessing employees.

Democracy is based on free speech. The postings of students and employees are a way to let off steam and can provide important information about public and private institutions. Penalizing students and employees for what they post would silence people for virtually their whole life, since people enter school at age 5 and retire from work six decades later. Unless the speech is likely to cause imminent harm to particular individuals, people should be able to freely express their ideas. Such expressions encourage societal discussion of the sort the founding fathers wanted to protect under the Constitution.

By articulating likes and dislikes, individuals can determine their own priorities, such as whether they should quit their job. And they can work to improve crucial social institutions such as schools and workplaces. We need a Social Network Constitution that protects people’s freedom of expression on the Web.

Lori Andrews is Distinguished Professor of Law at Kent College of Law; Director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology; and Associate Vice President at Illinois Institute of Technology. This post first appeared in the Jan. 8 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

What if the federal government declared that the Fourth of July was no longer a holiday? We would be told to report for work, cancel fireworks displays and picnics and go about our business the same as any other day.

Flickr photo by Thomas Hawk via Wikimedia Commons

There would be outrage. Americans would be angered by the suggestion that we shouldn’t celebrate freedom. Not recognize Independence Day? Why, that would be un-American.

And yet we do the same thing every Dec. 15, the birthday of our Bill of Rights.

In embracing these fundamental freedoms in 1791, we set ourselves apart from all other nations on the planet – then and ever since. It is one of the most important days in American history and yet almost no one takes the time to reflect on the importance of Dec. 15.

What does it say about America that we zealously celebrate our government’s Declaration of Independence from another government and totally overlook the American people’s Declaration of Independence from its government?

It’s not as though no one ever attempted to give this day the respect it deserves. On Aug. 21, 1941, a joint resolution of Congress called on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to designate a day in honor of the Bill of Rights.

On Nov. 28 , 1941, the Los Angeles Times reported that “President Roosevelt today called on the American people to observe Dec. 15 as ‘Bill of Rights Day,’ to cherish the ‘immeasurable privileges which the charter guaranteed’ and to rededicate its principles and practice.”

An appropriate kick-off celebration was planned at the Waldorf Astoria featuring actress Helen Hayes and Eleanor Roosevelt. Nine days after FDR’s proclamation, though, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and everything else took a back seat to World War II. This was the holiday that got away and it’s never been properly recognized since.

This year marks the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights, and it would be nice if all of us could take a little time at dinner tonight to ask our kids what they know about these freedoms, and help them understand why it’s such a significant day. Beyond the teaching opportunity, there’s also a little something in it for young Americans ages 14-22.

The Knight Foundation is funding a scholarship opportunity called “Free to Tweet.” Students who wish the First Amendment a happy birthday by tweeting about the importance of these fundamental freedoms today are eligible to compete for one of 22 scholarships (one for every decade since ratification). They just have to use the hash tag #freetotweet. Full details can be found at www.freetotweet.org.

The irony is that most of us honor the Fourth of July because we believe it’s a day on which Americans secured their freedom. But the truth is that the Declaration of Independence really only secured freedom for white and wealthy men. It took freedom of speech, press, religion, petition and assembly – the five freedoms of the First Amendment – to lead to suffrage for women, the emancipation of slaves and equality for all.

Please join in celebrating freedom today. It’s long overdue.

Ken Paulson is president of the First Amendment Center and the American Society of News Editors, and a founder of 1 for All. This post first appeared in The Seattle Times.

In 1788, Patrick Henry, America’s best-known Antifederalist, commandeered the proceedings at the Virginia ratifying convention, and warned that the Constitution put America’s hard-won liberties at risk. The “consequent happiness or misery of mankind. . .will depend on what we now decide,” he proclaimed. James Madison, seething at Henry’s audacity, patched together a narrow Federalist majority at the convention, partly due to his promise to pass a Bill of Rights in the first Congress.

Antifederalist pressure was largely to thank for the Bill of Rights, the section of the Constitution Americans now revere most highly. But we may also get the impression that the Bill of Rights was all the Antifederalists wanted. This is a myth.

It is true that some Americans who initially balked at the Constitution were reassured by the promise of a Bill of Rights. Baptists in Virginia, for example, were concerned about the absence of provisions guaranteeing religious freedom and banning a national establishment of religion. When Madison promised them that he would deliver these, Baptist Antifederalism in Virginia largely evaporated.

But many other Antifederalists, including Patrick Henry, doubted the efficacy of a Bill of Rights. What good would it do to assure Americans that the new government would not violate widely-accepted fundamental rights, while simultaneously giving it the power to do so? More critically, what would ever constrain the size and power of this government? Words alone could not suffice.

Even James Madison scoffed at the value of listing rights, calling such measures “parchment barriers.” Madison and many Federalists did not originally wish to include a Bill of Rights, believing that trying to enumerate all essential rights was a fool’s game. The Constitution did not give the government the power to violate the freedom of speech or religion, Madison thought, so we should assume that it was prohibited from doing so.

Madison also believed that the Constitution’s checks and balances would restrain its power. Henry disagreed, and wanted to see major structural amendments adopted that would reduce the national government’s authority. But the Antifederalists failed to get these amendments considered outside of the ratification debates.

When Madison shepherded the Bill of Rights to approval, Henry was not impressed. Because they did not address issues such as the ominous executive authority of the President, Henry thought the amendments “will tend to injure rather than to serve the cause of liberty.” Virginia’s Antifederalist senator William Grayson said the Bill of Rights was “good for nothing.”

I doubt that most Americans today would agree that the Bill of Rights injured the cause of American liberty. However, as we struggle to reduce the mind-boggling size of the American government, one is reminded that the Antifederalists had more fundamental criticisms of the Constitution than its lack of a Bill of Rights. They worried that once set in motion, the government would eventually grow to heights of nearly uncontrollable scope. This would leave us in a situation strongly reminiscent of the situation that has paralyzed American politics today.

Thomas S. Kidd teaches history at Baylor University and is Senior Fellow at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion. He is the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.

Alexander Hamilton (Wikimedia Commons)

When Hamilton wrote The Federalist No. 23, he did not envision a constitution that contained a bill of rights.  Indeed, most Federalists believed that a declaration of rights was unnecessary, but they pledged to adopt one in order to secure ratification of the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights guarantees certain fundamental liberties of the people, including free speech and press, peaceable assembly, and several important protections for accused criminals.

Despite these guarantees, when America goes to war—or appears to be on the verge of war—the war-making powers of the government regularly trump the Bill of Rights.  One need only recall the Sedition Act of 1798, Thomas Jefferson’s embargo, Andrew Jackson at New Orleans, the Civil War (in both the Union and the Confederacy), the two World Wars, or the McCarthy Era.  Presidents, Congresses, and the states have often limited the rights of some citizens—even if it meant “violating” the law—because they deemed such actions necessary to protect the nation.  As Lincoln famously argued on July 4, 1861, “Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”  In other words, the government must prioritize national survival in wartime because constitutional liberty would be worthless if there was no national government left to uphold the Constitution.

Strangely enough, this tension between national security and individual liberty is embedded in our fundamental law.  In a practical sense, the Bill of Rights is a “constitutional shackle” that has been placed upon the war-making power of the government.  As commander-in-chief, Lincoln understood this point intuitively.  Secessionists, he argued, had determined that “in their own unrestricted effort to destroy Union, constitution, and law, all together, the government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same constitution and law, from arresting their progress.”  Lincoln specifically noted that northern Democrats opposed his war policies “under cover of ‘Liberty of speech’ ‘Liberty of the press’ and ‘Habeas corpus.’”  Thus, Lincoln perceived the Bill of Rights as a constitutional shackle that impeded his ability to wage the war effectively.

Few Americans today will question the wisdom of the Anti-Federalists for insisting on a bill of rights.  Nevertheless, the inclusion of these guarantees in our founding document has caused something of a paradox in American society and law.  The first ten amendments to the Constitution protect our individual liberty at the same time that they “shackle” our leaders’ ability to protect us and our rights as a collective.  For more than two centuries Americans have sought to resolve this contradiction by attempting to strike a balance between liberty and security.  In truth, a satisfactory balance will always remain elusive.  So long as the nation faces emergencies, the Hamiltonian-Lincolnian interpretation of the Constitution will almost inevitably prevail.  But even as it does, the Bill of Rights remains an ever-present reminder of why the nation is worth preserving.

Jonathan W. White is an assistant professor of American Studies at Christopher Newport University and a fellow at CNU’s Center for American Studies. His new book, Abraham Lincoln and Treason in the Civil War: The Trials of John Merryman, was just published by LSU Press.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the rights of a New Jersey man whose drive home with his four-year-old son and pregnant wife ended in an invasive strip search at the jailhouse and seven days behind bars.

The plaintiff in this case, Albert W. Florence, tells the story of his wrongful arrest and subsequent treatment in his own words, in a podcast from the National Constitution Center and the American Constitution Society.

“He and his lawyers are not saying that prison officials should not have the right to search, even strip search, individuals who come into a criminal facility,” says Davis. “What they’re saying is there must be a reason.”

“Even thinking about it and even speaking about it still brings me, you know, chills,” Florence explains in “The Story Behind Florence v. Burlington.”

Florence’s lawyer, Susan Chana Lask, recalls their momentous success at the district court level challenging the jail’s blanket strip-search policy, and their loss on appeal. And Angela Davis, a law professor at American University, explains just what Florence is asking the Supreme Court to decide.

Part oral history, part legal commentary, this short podcast is the first in a series that reveals the voices behind seminal Supreme Court cases. Watch Florence’s story below, in advance of oral argument in the case, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, on October 12.

Nicole Flatow is the Associate Director of Communications for the American Constitution Society. To learn more visit www.acslaw.org.

Photo by Flickr user cliff1066™

Some of the most discussed changes in the upcoming manual include the lessened restrictions on administering lie-detector tests, searching people’s trash, and using surveillance squads during an assessment.

Another important change: currently, before an agent can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database, they are required to open an official inquiry, which creates a permanent file about that person. With the new rules, agents can do background research on databases without creating a record of it.

The discussion about these changes is a perfect example of the struggle between ensuring personal privacy and public safety–an idea the National Constitution Center invites visitors to explore with its current feature exhibition, Spies, Traitors & Saboteurs Fear and Freedom in America (created by the International Spy Museum).

To get an FBI agent’s perspective on the issue, we needed to look no further than the Center’s director of security, Sherman Hopkins, whose FBI career spanned 22 years.

Constitution Daily: Tell us a little bit about your work with the FBI.

Sherman Hopkins: Initially I worked at the Dallas office. My work covered personal crimes, like bank robberies, fugitives, kidnappings, and extortion. When I moved to Philadelphia my work focused on public corruption and financial crimes. I retired as a supervisory special agent.

CD: How did the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide play into your day-to-day work?

SH: The manual itself is fairly new. It’s primarily set up for intelligence gathering squads, which have increased since 9/11. I was never assigned to an intelligence gathering squad–my focus was criminal cases–however, I did some domestic terrorism intelligence gathering while I was working in the Philadelphia area.

CD: Do you think these new changes will be effective in ensuring a balance between citizens’ privacy and national security?

SH: I think so. It comes down to the integrity and the supervision of the agency–and there’s still going to be close supervision. If there is information stating that John Doe is suspected of funding Al Qaeda, the agent will have to convince a supervisor, a U.S. attorney or federal judge that the lead is credible. You still have to go through a lot of hoops so as not to violate any of the suspect person’s constitutional rights. The goal is to eliminate or confirm the person as a suspect. Giving agents more access to databases will make it a lot more expedien for agents to do their job and eliminate potential suspects. In the past, the FBI opened an inquiry or assessment on the suspected persons. With these changes, it would preclude a file from being created on someone unless the circumstances meet the guidelines.

CD: Let’s play devil’s advocate. How do we know we can depend on the integrity of the agents? Should we still give them the authority to make these decisions?

SH: Sure, you can have a bad apple. However, the supervision of the agents and the guidelines have been enhanced to cover those situations. Yes, the increased authority is a good thing, as it will both expedite and enhance investigations. It will accelerate potential cases and eliminate suspects a lot quicker. The time saved will be of great benefit.

CD: Any other thoughts to share?

SH: To protect the citizens and their rights–that’s what it’s all about. These changes are just going to increase the efficiency in which agents are able to do their job. And the checks and balances will always be there. In a lot of ways, the FBI is limited already. The FBI is not going to consent to agents going through people’s trash when it’s not needed. Their resources are limited, so they’ll prioritize all the aspects of their assignments.