|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Was the Bill of Rights Necessary?
When drafting The Constitution of the United States, the founders understood the goal of government to be the protection of the people’s natural, inalienable rights. They understood that these rights precede government and that government may not under any circumstances abridge these rights. With this in mind, the founders incorporated the system of checks and balances into the constitution to preserve the people’s inalienable rights. A bill of rights was not needed to check the new government and protect the rights of the citizens for three main reasons: first the constitution already contained protections; second, bill of rights documents were usually between kings and their people; and third, a bill of rights would actually be dangerous because the government could then violate unmentioned rights.
Because the Constitution already contained protections for those rights usually mentioned in a bill of rights, an added bill of rights was redundant. ... 84 written by Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton lists these included rights saying, “that the constitution proposed by the convention contains, as well as the constitution of this state, a number of such provisions. ... The Constitution gives the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, no Bill of Attainder or expost facto laws, no titles of nobility, guarantee in criminal cases by jury in the state which it was commuted, protections against accusations of treason and freedom of religion.
Approximate Word count = 948
Approximate Pages = 3.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|