I thought this point had been most forcefully advanced by Madison.
Hamilton held that the Constitution gave the Federal government only the power to provide for the common defense and encourage national greatness. It did not have the power to infringe upon citizens’ rights. Therefore, he objected to attaching a bill of rights to the Constitution. “[T]he Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights,” Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” asked Hamilton. “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” He also argued that the Constitution already protected trial by jury in criminal cases and provided for habeas corpus “in the most ample manner.”More here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=hamilton+bill+of+rights&safe=offHamilton could not possibly have been more correct in his predictions in this regard; in that sense, [history has proven that] he obliterated his opponents in this debate.
Our current condition of serfdom to the federal tyranny owes much to the fact that he did not prevail in this matter.