A modern day look into the Bill of Rights Dr. Holly Brewer September 17th, 2025 -- STAMP Student Union @ UMD
When I attended Dr. Holly Brewer’s talk on the Bill of Rights, I found that she explained the U.S. Constitution in a way that was easy to follow and very clear. She began by describing the time period when the Bill of Rights was written. According to her, the writers of the Constitution were reacting to the unfair treatment the colonists faced under British rule. She explained that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments were especially important because they protected people from censorship, unreasonable searches, and being arrested without good cause. Dr. Brewer also talked about how the meaning of the Constitution has been debated since the very beginning. She said the framers did not create a perfect or fully detailed document; instead, they created one that needed interpretation. Throughout history, people have argued over what certain rights should look like, especially during times of conflict or fear. She gave examples of how modern courts still struggle with issues like privacy, free speech, and due process. By the end of her talk, she showed that the Constitution is not a fixed set of rules but a guide that continues to grow and change as society changes. After listening to Dr. Brewer’s presentation, I found most of her points convincing. Her argument that the Bill of Rights was created because of real problems faced by the colonists made a lot of sense. She used clear historical examples, like the British government’s use of general warrants, to show why certain freedoms were included. These examples matched things I had already learned in class, which made her ideas feel reliable and well supported. Even though I agreed with her overall message, I still had some questions about her view that the Constitution is a “living” document. Dr. Brewer said that the Constitution must change as society changes, but I wondered if this could sometimes move too far away from what the framers intended. For example, free speech on the internet is very different from free speech in the 1700s, and I am not sure how the original ideas can always adjust smoothly. She did admit that there are debates between people who favor strict interpretation and those who favor flexible interpretation, which made me feel that she understood both sides. I also thought about whether she used any weak reasoning. Overall, her explanations were strong and backed by facts. She did not rely on emotional arguments or make big claims without evidence. One area that felt a little incomplete was her focus on the growth of rights. She did not talk as much about times when rights were restricted, such as during wartime or in certain Supreme Court cases. Including these examples might have made her talk more balanced. Still, I found her main point—that the Constitution requires active thinking and participation from citizens—very meaningful. Her talk helped me see that understanding the Bill of Rights takes both knowledge of history and awareness of today’s issues. I left with a better understanding of why constitutional debates are so important and why these discussions continue to shape our country.