Hamilton Argues Against A Bill Of Rights :: essays research papers

During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the yard that it did non contain a bankers bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its motives and that the states would be immersed by an all to dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on fill voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become an different monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.     Supporters of a constitution, lacking a bill of rights, were called Federalists. The Federalists included members such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and washbowl Jay, whom wrote a series o f essays that were designed to inform and persuade the public of their views pertaining to the issues of the day. Among these views was whether a bill of rights should be added to the constitution. The Federalists, via Alexander Hamilton, dealt with this issue in a first way in their 84th essay.     In the 84th essay Hamilton begins by explaining that a bill of rights, which are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Therefore Hamilton states that bills of rights have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and that downstairs the constitution the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything they have no need of extra reservations." Another argument used by Hamilton was reminding, those who criticise the constitution for lacking a Bill of Rights, that many of the state consti tutions do not contain one either. He believes that the Constitution, as is, effectively includes a bill of rights. The constitution contained various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights. Provisions such as the power to impeach, writ of habeas corpus, the allowance for no bill of attainder or ex post facto law, no granting of surname of nobility, trials that shall be by a jury in the state which the wickedness was committed within, and that punishment for treason will not extend to family members of the person convicted of that crime.