The enjoyment of life and liberty: James Madison's liberal design for the Bill of Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court and scholars have extensively used James Madison as an authority when they interpret provisions of the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, property rights, and rights of the criminally accused. These cases and scholarly works often provide competing and inconsistent interpretations of Madison's intent. These disagreements occur primarily because there have been few attempts to comprehensively understand Madison's views on human nature and his political theory when he proposed the Bill of Rights. Through a thorough historical examination of Madison's writings and speeches, one sees that Madison's understanding of human nature owed a debt to John Calvin, David Hume, and John Witherspoon. Madison believed that people were capable of achieving virtue, but also that after the Fall they were prone to acting wickedly and out of self-interest. This realistic understanding of human nature led Madison to the belief that no one, and no government, could be completely trusted. Madison's study of Calvin and John Locke led him to believe that humans retained certain natural rights after the Fall. Thus, Madison proposed a set of classical liberties when he drafted the Bill of Rights. In addition, Madison felt that protecting these natural liberal rights would have secondary benefits to society. Madison, similar to Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, thought that protecting liberal rights would allow people to cultivate their potential virtue through exercising their freedom. However, knowing that some persons would not be capable of virtue, Madison felt like Bernard Mandeville that society's common good could be advanced by taking advantage of the ingenuity and labor of those who acted out of selfishness. Although Madison was initially opposed to a bill of rights, his views of human nature and his political theory eventually convinced him that such a "parchment barrier" could be protective of freedom and useful strategically to save the Constitution. Finally, with this comprehensive understanding of Madison in mind, it is clear that while some Supreme Court justices have truly understood Madison, others have blindly dropped Madison's name as an appeal to authority.