Bill of Rights: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81 - 0 views
-
The most considerable of these remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked, that the constitutions of several of the states are in a similar predicament.
-
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.
-
It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.
- ...6 more annotations...
-
the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.
-
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.
-
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.
-
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
-
"We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."
-
The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS
-
University of Chicago publication on the Web of all Federalist Papers. The question i was researching had to do with Michael Hickens comparison of Hamilton to FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). I was looking for some are where there might be some measure of "agreement" between Hamilton and FDR. Hamilton of course is known as a great defender of personal liberty, LIMITED government, and the importance of ENUMERATED powers in the Constitution. In this paper he argues that the call for a Bill of Rights added to the proposed Constitution is uneccessary exactly because the people did not grant to the government the powers to infringe or take away any freedoms/rights to begin with. He further argues that enumerating these "rights" would suggest that somehow the federal government would have this power! Even though it's enumerated in the Constitution. So why write an enumerated Constitution if you have to further enumerate the rights of the people beyond the limits of government? FDR of course is the great statist/socialist who believed that the Constitution doesn't go far enough in it's obligations to CARE for the people's needs. So FDR proposed a second Bill of Rights that expanded the governments responsibilities and POWER to provide for damn near every physical and material need a person might ever have. Two interesting "value statements" to consider. Guess which one would be supported by that great Federalist, Hamilton. And which by that great statist/socialist, FDR? Karl Marx: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " And then there's t