Why wasnâ€™t a bill of rights included in the original constitution?

Law

1 answer:

Sidana [21]2 years ago

5 0

Answer:

The first Congress of the United States approves 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and sends them to the states for ratification. The amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure and to bear arms; and that powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved for the states and the people.

Influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Bill of Rights was also drawn from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason in 1776. Mason, a native Virginian, was a lifelong champion of individual liberties, and in 1787 he attended the Constitutional Convention and criticized the final document for lacking constitutional protection of basic political rights. In the ratification process that followed, Mason and other critics agreed to approve the Constitution in exchange for the assurance that amendments would immediately be adopted.

Source: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bill-of-rights-passes-congress

Explanation:

Hope this helps!

You might be interested in

Can someone tell me if this is correct

lakkis [162]

Answer:

not mistaking it is correct

3 0

1 year ago

Nora is a criminology student. she is tasked with explaining how society responds to an increase in crime. what theory is nora m

alexandr1967 [171]

A is the answer social pathology

6 0

1 year ago

3.) Attempted Murder. You are a police investigator. A distraught wife appears at the local police station and states that her h

Blizzard [7]

Answer:

a, i will call the police and cops and detective for something

b, if the poison will be not harmless so she would be having a little power to call police because harmless doesnt make you weak

5 0

1 year ago

To which of the following would Kant and Nozick agree?

soldier1979 [14.2K]

Answer:

Although Robert Nozick did not consider himself to be primarily a political philosopher, he is best known for his contributions to it. Undoubtedly, Nozick’s work in epistemology and metaphysics (especially with respect to free will and the “closest continuer” theory of personal identity) has had a significant impact on those fields. However, it was the publication of his first book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) that revitalized the political right-wing and set off a firestorm of critical replies and commentaries. While Nozick’s accomplishments reach far beyond the confines of political philosophy, it is safe to say that most recognize him for his work on attempting to provide a justification for the state, setting the limits of government, and trying to convince us that accepting his minimal state could foster a framework for a constellation of communities constituting a sort of utopia.

Anarchy, State and Utopia can also be seen as a critical response to John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, which was published just three years earlier and was considered to be the most robust and sophisticated defense of liberal egalitarianism. Although many credit Rawls for single-handedly rekindling interest in political philosophy, this is likely overstated praise. There is little doubt that Nozick’s systematic criticism of Rawls’ theory of justice and establishment of a rival political theory in Anarchy, State and Utopia also played a major role in bring significant attention back to political philosophy.

8 0

2 years ago

In 1996 California legalized the medical use of marijuana, even though it was still illegal under federal law. Californians Ange

BartSMP [9]

Answer:

The federal government's argument must prevail.

Explanation:

The medical marijuana of Angel Raich and Diane Monson really affects the interstate marijuana market and interferes with government control of that product. In this case, the federal government has the authority to regulate and prohibit the consumption and sale of this product. In this case, the action of justice in destroying the factories of Angel and Diane was correct, and it is not up to them to open a case in their defenses.

4 0

2 years ago