This shows, by the way, the fundamental error of the Founders: their assumption that checks and balances can prevent tyranny. The problem with checks and balances is that they don't work, if all three branches of government are corrupt in similar ways, which is the case today.
Thus, in addition to checks and balances, one needs a virtuous ruling elite and/or a functioning democracy, neither of which we have today. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
Unless I'm mistaken, it's sometimes said in their defense that they saw the Bill of Rights as unnecessary, since it's principles were contained in English common law. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." ... ... Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected ... Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included. ... Following the Philadelphia Convention, some famous revolutionary figures and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry, publicly argued against the Constitution. Many were concerned that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to individual rights and that the President would become a king, and objected to the federal court system in the proposed Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, in part to protest its lack of a Bill of Rights.
...
Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected
Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.
Following the Philadelphia Convention, some famous revolutionary figures and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry, publicly argued against the Constitution. Many were concerned that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to individual rights and that the President would become a king, and objected to the federal court system in the proposed Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, in part to protest its lack of a Bill of Rights.
