ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ

Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.

But that's just what happened in response to of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman's threat to punish the network for Kimmel's comments about Charlie Kirk's alleged killer.

It lit up the media. and denounced the FCC chairman Brendan Carr for violating the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. , including , joined them.

, Kimmel's show was back on the air.

While bipartisan agreement may be rare, it's not surprising that it came in defense of the First Amendment—and a popular TV show. A found that a whopping 90% of respondents called the First Amendment "vital," while 64% believed it's so close to perfection that they wouldn't change a word.

In just 45 words, it bars Congress from establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion, interfering with the people's right to assemble and petition, or abridging freedom of speech or the press.

. Here's the story of why this amendment—now considered fundamental to American freedom and identity—.

Added three years after the Constitution was ratified, it resulted from .

Soured on bills of rights

Building a strong national government was the focus of Madison and the other delegates who met in Philadelphia in .

the government created by after the colonists declared independence was dysfunctional, and the nation was disintegrating.

The government could not pay its debts, defend the frontier or protect commerce from interference by states and foreign governments.

Although Madison and the other framers aimed to create a stronger national government, they cared about protecting liberty. Many had helped pioneering bills of rights.

in securing passage in 1776 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a monument to civil liberties.

By the time the Constitutional Convention met, however, Madison had soured on such measures. During the 1780s, he had watched with alarm as explicitly guaranteed by their constitutions. Bills of rights, he concluded, weren't sufficient to protect rights.

So Madison and his colleagues .

No appetite to haggle

they wrote created a government powerful enough to promote the national interests while maintaining a check on state legislatures. It also established a system of checks and balances that ensured federal power wasn't abused.

In the convention's waning days, delegates briefly discussed adding a bill of rights but unanimously . They had sweated through almost four months of a sweltering Philadelphia summer and were ready to go home. When Virginia's John Rutledge noted "the extreme anxiety of many members of the Convention to ," he was stating the obvious. With the Constitution in final form, few had the appetite to haggle over the provisions of a bill of rights.

That decision when the Constitution went to the states for ratification.

The new Constitution's supporters, , faced fierce opposition from Anti-Federalists who charged that a powerful national government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would inevitably lead to tyranny.

Ratification conventions in —Massachusetts, New York and Virginia—were narrowly divided; ratification hung in the balance. Federalists resisted demands to make ratification contingent on amendments suggested by state conventions. But they agreed to add a bill of rights—after the Constitution was ratified and took effect.

That concession did the trick.

Harmless, possibly helpful

The three critical states , and by midsummer 1788, the Constitution had been approved.

However, when the First Congress met in March 1789, the Federalist majority a bill of rights. They had won and were ready to move on.

Madison, now a Federalist leader in the House of Representatives, . He warned that failure to do so would undermine trust in the new government and give Anti-Federalists ammunition to demand a new convention to do what Congress had left undone.

But Madison wasn't just arguing for his party keeping its word. He had also changed his mind.

The ratification debates and Madison's correspondence with Thomas Jefferson led him to think differently about a bill of rights. He now thought it harmless and possibly helpful. Its provisions, Madison conceded, might become "" and part of "the national sentiment." Broad popular support for a bill of rights might provide a check on government officials and how they wielded power.

Madison relentlessly. Wary of provisions that would weaken the national government, he developed a slate of amendments focused on individual rights. Ultimately, Congress —ensuring rights from freedom of speech to protection from cruel and unusual punishment—and sent them to the states for ratification.

First Amendment no cure-all

By the end of 1791, .

As Madison anticipated, the First Amendment wasn't a cure for a government bent on suppressing dissent. From the in the 1790s to in the 1950s and the assault on the First Amendment, government has used its awesome powers to pursue and punish critics.

On occasion, , a weapon Madison didn't anticipate. But .

Perhaps the ultimate protection for First Amendment rights is "national sentiment," as Madison suggested. Norm-breaking presidents can disregard the law, and judges may cave. But public sentiment is a powerful force, as Jimmy Kimmel can attest.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .