The constitution does not grant any rights.
The words: “Bill of Rights” seems to confuse people.
The original, unamended Constitution was a remarkable achievement, establishing a revolutionary structure of government that put power in the hands of the people.
The Bill of Rights built on that foundation, protecting our most cherished American freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and due process of law.
As you can see, the amendments, known as the “Bill of Rights” is actually a Protection of Individual Rights, not a grantor of rights!
(Those are God given)
“Congress shall make no law...”, “Shall not be infringed...”, “Shall not be violated ...”
(Notice a trend here?)
The first 10 amendments, which we refer to as the “Bill of Rights”, were the subject of much debate at the time.
The question was whether or not the amendments were necessary and that there was nothing in the constitution that allowed the federal government to constrain any of these rights.
Hamilton did not support the addition of a bill of rights because he believed that the constitution wasn’t written to limit the people.
This is why the Bill of Rights is often referred to as a bill of negative rights.
All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government.
Such limits are known as negative rights.
Our “Rights” are granted by God and are known as “Inalienable Rights.”
Well, in Federalist #84 he says something else. I just can't agree with your assertion. Maybe I've read too many of Hamilton's writings.
Some of the Amendments penned by Madison recognized the rights that the citizens possess. Read them. Rights. He referred to the rights of people in some parts as he placed limitations on the powers of government. In other areas he simply put limitations on power or actions of government. Madison didn't want the BOR; his 180 change in direction was because he understood (correctly) that without the upcoming amendments, the Constitution's ratification was in danger.