Bill+of+Rights+Articles

To the People of the State of New York: To the People of the State of New York:

Over the course of this discussion regarding the Constitution, it has become clear that the Federalists do not understand the importance of our new found rights. One such Federalist, one who wrote Federalist Paper No 84, has outlined the reason for which he denies the necessity of a Bill of Rights. To put it simply, he is against adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, under a "nom de plume," has argued that "a declaration of rights...must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself." He asserts that to have a Bill of Rights would deny American citizens of all the other rights not listed in the such a declaration. He does not realize that such a list is not a limitation, but is rather a protection. The Bill of Rights will list the most important rights which America is based upon; it is satisfactory that other rights may be mentioned elsewhere, but it is essential that these rights are declared in such a document.

We need a Bill of Rights because the rights are not guaranteed just because there are no laws against them. There should be a list of the rights so that the People, who have never had these freedoms and not used to this liberty, know which rights they to which they are entitled. It is important to spell them out one by one, so that they cannot be denied or lost in a sea of words and confusion. Such a document will also function as a good boundary and balance to bring democracy into America. By democracy, I mean not only by the majority, but also by that balance between the rights and interests of every individual and the will of majority.

Finally, the absence of a Bill of Rights in the constitution of the State of New York is no argument against such a Bill in the Constitution of the United States. Never has there been more at stake, and such a clarification and extra protection cannot, and should not, but opposed. What is our new nation without liberty, without the guarantees of freedom for the individual? Merely a poor replica of our despised Mother Country. Let us not fall into such a sad state; let us have a Bill of Rights!

Julia Cleopatra

Regarding the issue of the Bill of Rights by Dan Humphrey

The topic of the inclusion of Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States has been a grave controversy that arose heated debates and reddened faces all over the continent. To address this issue, I would like to refer to the splendid document of the Federalist Paper # 67 written by Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton reasons that the Constitution does not need an addition of the Bill of Rights, listing six provisions that protect individual liberties already included in the Constitution: power to impeach, writ of habeas corpus, prohibition of Bills of attender and ex-post-facto laws, prohibition of nobility titles, right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and last but not least, the careful definition of treason to prevent hardship on the criminal's family. Thus the addition is unnecessary; Hamilton, however, argues more in depth that the addition can be dangerous, since a bill of rights might be interpreted to limit certain governmental powers.For those who worry that the internal affairs of the national government may be completely unknown to citizens that reside far away, Hamilton clarifies that people will actually be more clarified of the conduct of their representatives because they can evaluate the laws passed, correspond with their representatives, and so on - also, the states will act as overseers of the national government for possible corruption. For those that worry the expenses of the proposed government, Hamilton refutes that (and I agree most heartfully) creation of a good government should not be hindered by the worry of expenses.

I concur with Hamilton that the Bill of Rights is not only unnecessary since the Constitution implicitly states all the rights of American citizens, but possibly dangerous because it might act as restrictions on some of the government's powers. The art of such official documents as the Constitution, I personally think, is the power of liability and various interpretations. For some that lack the power of logical deduction might conclude from the Constitution that it has stated nothing about individual rights - for others, however, they are in every sentence.

It is my deepest regret that controversies such as these arise to dismantle the unity of our political structure. However, as stated in Federalist Paper # 10 by James Madison, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires." As long as we citizens hold the freedom of opinions and speech, we will continue to have these arguments of status quo - sometimes an evil, but a necessary one at that. It is my hope that through this article and the Federalist Paper # 10, opponents of my argument will see the logic and be more satisfied with the current Constitution of the United States.

A response to the issue concerning the Bill of rights I write to you, concerning the Bill of Rights, to warn of its evils that will invariably weaken and may even chance to ruin our new nation. Throughout my argument I will be referring constantly to the Federalist Paper #84 which was written by Alexander Hamilton regarding the necessity of the Bill of Rights. Hamilton clearly expresses disdain to the idea of the Bill of Rights—it is unnecessary. We may even be putting ourselves in danger of limiting the liberty and freedom of the people as well as the government. Though the Bill of Rights would state which rights that we do have, to quote Hamilton, “They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted.” This means that if we leave out rights that are simply implied or insinuated, we risk the danger of losing them or the evil of giving an excuse to claim more rights than granted to a corrupted being. This may lead to an imbalance of power as well as corruption and declines of freedom and liberty. In addition to its fallibility is the sheer needlessness of this “Bill of Rights”. In times prior to the present, any bill or document stating rights were addressed from subjects to their monarchs. Hamilton gave the example of the Magna Carta of Britain attained from the king by forceful Barons, the agreement of the monarchs of Orange to rule of a constitutional monarchy to the Parliament, and other such contracts between rulers and their subordinates… The point of mentioning these instances was to emphasize how documents such as the Bill of Rights are necessary in governments ruled by monarchs; however, we are a government by the people and of the people—we do not need a Bill of rights for it is clearly known that we retain all of our rights, not just particular or specific ones. As Hamilton had quoted the beginning of our Constitution-“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.” There is also the uncertainty of the rights of the Bill of Rights. For example, concerning the Rights of Press… I concur with Hamilton when he asks “What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?” Nowhere in the bill does it define the rights of the Press--one can argue interminably about what rights have been granted to the Press. Our rights must “depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. Here …must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights”. - Artemidorus

To the People of the State of New York:

I will be discussing the issues of the Bill of Rights using The Federalist Papers No. 84. I am in agreement with Sir Hamilton regarding these issues of the Bill of Rights. The overall idea of inserting a Bill of Rights to the Constitution is very unnecessary. Hamilton states straightforwardly: “it contains, in the body of it, various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights, which, in substance amount to the same thing”.

Including a separate Bill of Rights would not only be unnecessary, but also redundant. By incorporating the Bill of Rights, it would not be helpful in this young flourishing nation. It would rather limit rights and cause instability among powers. Therefore, it “would even be dangerous”. The Bill of Rights will, most likely, not state all the rights and powers that are granted to the people. This could be interpreted in a way that may actually result in the deprival of certain rights. Furthermore, let me point out that this could have a high possibility of rising questions and arguments among the People. Disputes will break out and many will hold strong with their own beliefs.

In such a country where everyone is trying to help it prosper, I see the addition of the Bill of Rights as unnecessary. I will state again: everything needed is already stated in the body of the document, and it will be dangerous. The last thing this country needs is more dispute among people. Thomas Hill

To the Anti-Federalists

Dear Anti-Federalists,

It must occur and must happen to ratify the Articles of Confederation. For example, Laws executed by the committees of Congress would give too much power to the legislative branch. My friends, we are trying to help you out on the issue of protecting the rights of our citizens after this whole confrontation with the British. Also giving instead of 1 vote to the state, our new constitution give 2 votes from senate and representatives would be based on populations, which will make a fair voting on political decisions.

Our argument is that the separation of powers into three independent branches will protect the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. Also about the Bill of Rights is that it can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can’t list all the rights, we, the Federalists, argue that it’s better to list none at all.

Thus we argue that we don't need bill of rights

Edward Johnson

To the free citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

We are entrusting, and in the process surrendering our natural rights in to the hands of those, who are very willing to receive them and whose passions are always striving to make bad use of them.

For a Constitution of the United States of America to evade the inclusion of the Bill of Rights is preposterous, considering that the Constitution of each of the States does not fail to include one. It should be the intention of many, to instate accuracy, to stress precision. This is the only way safeguard our natural rights from the tyrants that may threaten to repeat the monumental crimes of the past.

The sure advantages of a written accord, is profound in the facile evasion of dispute over wrongful interpretation of legislature, future altercations and intrusions of tyrants due to their supposed inferences of implications of the document here forth.

Essentially, that is why some strive to achieve the ratification of this problematic document.

I honor the spirit of these Federalists. I have to say, they exercise their spirit in wrong fashion.

It is my duty to stress upon the yearn for, vigilance and prudence.

Caleb Sullivan