During the Constitutional Convention, the discussion on whether or not to include a Bill of Rights occurred and the idea was rejected. Supporters of the Constitution, the Federalists, thought a bill of rights was unnecessary and even dangerous. The authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all, lest the list become a limit to liberty and freedom as opposed to its guarantor (an idea later enshrined in the 9th Amendment).
However, New York and several other states were initially opposed to ratification and only agreed to ratify with the promise that the First Congress would add rights to the Constitution through the amendment process. They feared that without explicit restriction, the federal government would abuse those powers it was granted; primarily those found in Art. I Sec. 8., coupled with the Necessary and Proper [Elastic] Clause.
The first declaration in the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes this concern explicit, reading: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Taking what you have learned in class as the basis for your response, was the Bill of Rights a necessary addition to the Constitution? Why or why not? Does the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states, in addition to the federal government, alter the importance of the Bill of Rights? Be sure to provide a defense of your position.
Feel free to reference current events, including legislation, executive action, and judicial opinions in your response. Cite your sources!
