The enactment of the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment, was the culmination of a long evolutionary process, and gave new significance to the concept of individual rights. The First Amendment secured freedom of conscience for all American citizens. Its rights, which include the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, seem natural to us today, but at the time their scope was far from ordinary. The first amendment was not easily obtained, as debate over its passage at times grew intense, yet all who were involved in this process had a strong grounding and belief in the idea of human rights. Ultimately the amendment went into effect, and has done much throughout our history to secure the rights of our citizens and contribute to the workings of our brilliantly devised government.

 The historical precedents for the rights found in the First Amendment come most notably from the English political traditions of equality in the face of the law and ever increasing participation in government by the people. The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 brought ideas of individual rights into political practice, but only in a narrow sense, as they never applied to all citizens.

 During the Enlightenment inalienable human rights were further emphasized in the political philosophies of such great thinkers as John Locke and Voltaire. Locke argued for the "natural rights" of all citizens that should not be encroached upon by any government. Voltaire vouched for the freedom of speech in his famous quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The founders of the American political experiment were highly influenced by these ideas.

 The American people's belief in their right to basic freedoms was evident throughout colonial history, and by 1787 elements of the First Amendment freedoms were heavily embedded in the American moral and political way of life. One such right, the freedom of religion, was the basis of the pilgrimage by our Puritan forefathers to the New World. Another, the freedom of the press, had been conspicuously denied them many times by the English and colonial governments, and such incidents as the Zenger trial of 1735 revealed the colonists' revolt against censorship. Also, and most notably, the freedom of the people to assemble and to petition the government was at the heart of the American political tradition of the time. The many colonial assemblies, which had written petitions for redress of grievances against the English crown, were manifestations of this right. England's failure to address the complaints had inevitably led to the greatest of all such petitions, The Declaration of Independence, which ignited the revolution that would create the independent United States.

 The lack of a bill of rights in the original Constitution was deliberate. Near the end of the Constitutional Convention, the idea for a federal Bill of Rights was introduced by George Mason, the drafter of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The proposal was debated, but many, including James Madison (who had written much of the Constitution), thought that no such enumeration of rights was necessary. They believed that the government they had created did not have the power to deprive its citizens of these rights, and therefore these rights were already implicit in the Constitution. Still others worried that a listing would imply that only those rights specifically outlined were protected, and could be construed to deny other rights from the people. In the end Mason's bill of rights was not included in the Constitution. When it was presented for ratification, this omission became a subject of major contention. However, due to a general compromise that such a bill would soon be added, the Constitution gained the needed support of three-fourths of the states and went into effect across the United States.

 The First Congress of the new government thus convened under the new Constitution with a promise to issue a bill of rights. The fate of the bill found itself in the unlikely hands of James Madison, who had initially opposed such a statement of rights, but had slowly and deliberately changed his mind, and now proposed to start the amending process. He had decided that by adding a bill of rights he would gain universal support for the Constitution and at the same time would protect it from any major alterations by more radical parties. Madison, along with ten others, shaved the some two hundred amendments proposed by the states down to a collection of fifteen. Madison drew heavily from the ideas in Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, and picked only those amendments that he believed addressed "the great and essential rights," and were "overwhelmingly popular and uncontroversial." He did not include those that he believed were "likely to change the principles of the government, or that [were] doubtful in nature" (Goldwin, From Parchment To Power).

 The clause pertaining to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition reached the floor near the beginning of the debates. After a debate over details the entire clause was adopted without further question. This seems surprising. Intense debate had centered on the importance of introducing these amendments at the current time, but when it came to voting on such basic rights as these, it is evident that the congressmen supported them in entirety.

 The clause referring to the freedom of religion was met with more criticism. Many believed that it might be interpreted to abolish religion altogether, while others thought that it was altogether unnecessary. Madison defended the clause, reassuring that it meant "Congress cannot establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law," and that "Congress cannot compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience" (Goldwin, From Parchment To Power, 111). He explained that this clause was needed to counter the "necessary and proper" clause within the Constitution, which in theory could be used to establish a national religion. After much deliberation, the clause was finally passed.

 Thus came about the First Amendment, one of the greatest achievements for individual human rights in all of history. The long procedures needed to enact the amendment illustrate how greatly the founders believed in democratic process, a process that would be further protected by the rights in the First Amendment. Bundled together to indicate the important interrelationship among these freedoms, the first amendment rights have become the hallmark of the American tradition of liberty for all. It is important to note the first five words of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law…" which are an amazing instance of self-denial by those in power. The members of the First Congress saw beyond the limits such a bill would impose upon themselves, and looked to the ideals upon which their newly created government was founded. They realized that such limitations would apply to all future generations and help to keep the ideals of the American Revolution alive.

 But are these rights fundamental in nature? I would not go so far as to say that they are fundamental to the existence of human life, or even the existence of civilization, for we have seen many states deny their citizens some or all of these rights without immediate or inevitable harm to the peoples' physical well-being. Yet they are fundamental in a different sense. If a democratic republic such as the one we have in place today, based on liberty, equality, and justice for all, is what the founders strove for, as certainly it was, then these rights are fundamental to the workings of such a government. In such a system as our own, the full and unhindered participation of an educated and free citizenry is necessary and vital to the proper functioning of government. Government is a contract between people so that they may rule themselves all the more wisely, and therefore the people's constant input is altogether imperative. This right to participate in government is what the First Amendment secures. By protecting the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, the founders were guaranteeing the right of all minorities to be heard. They were creating an active democracy, in which all members would not only be allowed to partake in the workings government, but also be encouraged to do so by a free and highly operative press. Our founders saw in these freedoms the essence of their political mechanism, and were sure to secure them for all future generations.

 Today the First Amendment is in full effect. It has been necessary at times to judge where the borders of such broad rights lie. Some argue that its freedoms have been interpreted too liberally, while others believe that these rights still need to be expanded. In this debate lies the beauty of the amendment. These limits on government were made vague in order to leave the challenge of their interpretation to each new generation. Yet they are powerful and serve as a strong reminder of the initial ideals of our nation. They were created for an ever-growing America, but they have insured that the framers' original idea of America will never be lost. Thanks to the founders' foresight in protecting these rights, our government "of the people" will always remain so. The First Amendment has now served for more than two centuries as a bastion of civil liberty and a necessary protection to the proper functioning of the most amazing collection of laws and principles in all of history, that of the United States of America.