I read with bemused curiosity this morning, a number of headlines claiming that newly-confirmed CIA Director Brennan took his oath of office on a “draft” of the US Constitution that did not contain the Bill of Rights. (Given the issues I’ve had with this blog lately, I’m not going to link to any stories. But you will find a lot of them on the web, most of them with virtually identical “headlines” – who writes those things?) I have blogged before on this issue: that the original Constitutional Convention did not think it was necessary to list those rights that were inherent in the people under British law. It was a concern raised during the ratification period that caused those involved in the project to list the rights, which then became known as the Bill of Rights.
I am not sure what motivated some to claim that Brennan (who, based on the quotes, indicated that he desired a historical artifact in order to show his commitment to the rule of law) was somehow dissing the Bill of Rights. I did not read that anywhere and could not even glean it from the text I read.
This all causes me to ask who is writing the headlines, and why so little attention is paid to the content of the story when doing so.