Because he and I agree.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. And I have apparently been a bit obtuse in some of my postings, so I'll try to explain what I mean a bit clearer.
IMHO, the founders gave equal credence to both Individual and State Rights. I don't not think that the original Constitution was meant to be applied to the States other than where this was expressly stated.
I base my claim to the rights of the states in the fact that the States themselves were required to approve the Constitution, not just the representatives of the people at the Convention. Furthermore, any amendments to the constitution must also be approved by the state legislatures. This implies a certain amount of sovereignty at state level. Additionally, only sovereigns have the power to lay and impose taxes or raise armies. The power to raise [standing] armies was abdicated by the states to the Federal Government. The power to levy taxes was retained by the states.
So, the Constitution, as originally written (before ANY Amendments!) was nothing more than an enumeration of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the People and the States.
I agree with Hamilton that it was dangerous to include a Bill of Rights as this could be construed to imply that the Federal Government would have had the power to do the things prohibited by them [and this seems to be the case in many of of court decisions].
The preamble to the "Bill of Rights" reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of 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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution; ..."
This was probably included to answer the objections of the Federalists. Unfortunately, it seems to be entirely ignored.
The Ninth Amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I can only see an enumeration of "rights" of the people within the "Bill of Rights" itself. I therefore conclude that this amendment was a type of catch all which further placated the Federalists in their objections.
The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " The clause "are reserved to the states respectively" further supports the claim of states "rights". But I'd like to dissect this a bit.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." [my reading: any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government] nor prohibited by it to the states, [my reading: nor any power specifically prohibited by the constitution to the states (as they were abdicated which makes their use by the states a hindrance to the well being of the nation as a whole)] are reserved to the states respectively, [my reading: is retained by the states individually] or to the people.
Thus, although totally unnecessary in a Constitution which granted only limited powers to the Federal Government, the Tenth Amendment could read "Any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government, nor any power specifically prohibited by the constitution to the states, is retained by the states individually, or by the people."
We must also consider that any one of the original ten amendments can only refer to the constitution itself, not themselves. Consider that, if three fourths of the state legislatures had NOT approved the Tenth Amendment, it would not exist. Would the nonexistence of the tenth amendment in any way grant more power to the federal government to infringe upon an individual's or a state's rights?
State Constitutions: I am not well versed in the various State Constitutions. On the "theory" level, IF a State's Constitution were written in a similar fashion as the US Constitution [i.e. a granting of specific limited powers to the State] AND said Constitution was silent on the question of the RKBA's - then the State has no power to restrict.
The above is obviously quite "short". I think though that you can at least understand my point of view (even if we don't agree!!). I'd be happy to discuss any points further if desired. Just don't want to make a Mega Post which bores the tears out of everyone . . . . (it's also getting late here and my better half wants some of my time ;-D )
Thanks for reading..... Good Night!