the Bill of Rights gave us our rights.
Repeating plainly false statements over and over on these threads doesn't make them any less false. It just teaches more and more people about your credibility.
No one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a public trial in a state court until 1948, when the Supreme Court extended that part of the Sixth Amendment to the states in In Re Oliver. And no one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a speedy trial in a state court until 1967, when the Court extended that part of the same amendment to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.
The body of the Constitution specifically guaranteed only a few personal rights. The Anti-Federalists objected to this, making the ratification of the Constitution doubtful. To assure that it was ratified, the Federalists had to agree to add more specific guarantees as soon as the First Congress came into session. James Madison, who before 1788 had opposed any Bill of Rights, became convinced one should be added to the Constitution and agreed to draft a set of amendments. After some were rejected, others were substantially modified, and one failed ratification, they became the first eight amendments to the Constitution--the Bill of Rights.
Some members of Congress at the time thought it was a waste of time to list rights in this way, because all the listed rights belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave Congress power to take them away. Some went as far as to suggest a Bill of Rights might harm liberty, by tending to support an argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. It was partly out of this concern that the Ninth Amendment was included.
The Bill is not a
grant of power to the government of the United States but a
limitation on its power. It did not authorize the new government to
give any rights to anyone. Just the opposite--it guaranteed certain rights against the new government that most people at the time believed it must not
take away. That fact frustrates the thoroughly undemocratic and un-American desire some people have for an all-powerful national government that dispenses and withdraws individual rights at its pleasure--but it is fact just the same.
Your false claim also ignores the fact, which the Court stated in Heller, that the Court considers the rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments in particular to predate the Constitution. As I pointed out in a post not long ago, the Court has said the same about the right to habeas. The Framers did not grant it in the Constitution, but simply said it could only be
suspended under certain conditions. No need to grant a right that was already long established by the time the Constitution was written. You couldn't refute what I wrote about these pre-existing rights in that post, so you pretended to agree with it. Now, though, when you think that's been forgotten, you go back to singing your old tune again.