1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sedbober [7]
3 years ago
8

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unne

cessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. —Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Paper 84 What point is Alexander Hamilton making? A. A bill of rights was necessary for ratification. B. A bill of rights should include only certain rights. C. The Constitution did not need a bill of rights. D. The Constitution is stronger with a bill of rights.
History
2 answers:
MaRussiya [10]3 years ago
8 0

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] 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 [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted. . . . [it] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

bixtya [17]3 years ago
5 0

C. The Constitution did not need the BILL of Right.


You might be interested in
Which is true about cave paintings?
Len [333]

Cave paintings provide clues about prehistoric life.


Cave paintings<span> (also known as "</span>parietal art<span>") are painted drawings on </span>cave<span> <span>walls or ceilings, mainly of </span></span>prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.

 

The correct answer between all the choices given is the first choice or letter A. I am hoping that this answer has satisfied your query and it will be able to help you in your endeavor, and if you would like, feel free to ask another question.

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How were the social class in France prior to the revolution formulated? Who were in each class and what were there rights and re
Ivan

Answer: 3

Explanation:At that time, the social classes were divided into three groups called as estates. The first estate was of clergy, the second estate was of nobility and the third estate consisted of other classes and individuals such as peasants, merchants, lawyers, artisans and industrial workers

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
(Time Order) Events are arranged in the order in which they happened *
S_A_V [24]

Answer:

the answer is true

Explanation:

answer is true

7 0
2 years ago
The colonies of Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina were all part of which colonial region?
vodka [1.7K]
The southern colonies
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What have you heard about the Holocaust that you think is true?
denpristay [2]

Answer: evry thing but its so hard to imagine how cruel humanity can be

Explanation:

they where burnt gassed and starved to death for what crime might you ask ?

for being jewish ! they lost all their family and lively hood and life

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why would Pennsylvania have appealed to immigrants? A. because of its status as a royal colony B. because of its commitment to r
    13·2 answers
  • Help please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    14·2 answers
  • Which statements correctly describe the African slave trade of the 1500s?
    11·2 answers
  • Why did General lee resign from the US army ?
    9·1 answer
  • Which city-state had the most powerful navy? a. Athens b.Sparta c.Thebes d.Corinth
    11·1 answer
  • Why do historians refer to the election of Thomas Jefferson as the Revolution of 1800?
    15·1 answer
  • What lead to the U.S. economy rising and creating an age of Prosperity during the 1920s?
    8·1 answer
  • Reasons for building up the US military?
    7·1 answer
  • Plaquemines Parish uses the president-council system to give smaller districts within the parish equal representation.
    10·1 answer
  • Did President Truman make the correct decision in using the atomic bomb? What would the consequences have been if he had chosen
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!