Replies

I have had no teacher tell me what they wrote but in any case Madison's desire does not mean that the rest of Congress agreed with him. It should be recalled that at this time Madison was still an uber Federalist. Jefferson had not yet arrived from France to twist him away from the true faith. He had even proposed at the Convention that the states be done away with entirely which was more than Hamilton had ever suggested.

Most of the states did not even have Bills of Rights. Hence, it had only been brought up as a means of opposing the adoption of the Constitution. Had there been this universal demand for them they would have played a more prominent role in the State's constitutions where adoption should have been a matter of course.

Madison and Hamilton both opposed them as unnecessary but later realized that the anti-federalist opposition was using the lack of the BoR as a tool to whip up the ignorant and fanatic against the Constitution. Thus, they buried their misgivings and undercut the Antis by allowing it. Hamilton has a thorough discussion of the tactics and the perfidy of the opposition wrt this issue in the Federalist. He shows the antis to be complete blowhards without a shred of honesty or understanding.

If the two greatest political thinkers of the time were not overly enthusiastic I would believe it unnecessary given that the People are the best guarantors of Liberty. But it has become a tradition and part of the National Myth which is not worth destroying or fighting about.

Doesn't mean they agreed with him? They argued for a WEEK about the inclusion of the BoR and the proper scope of the Federal Constitution once passed. But they STILL PASSED IT. Even with the "Supreme Law of the Land" clause and everything that meant. The very arguments you mention were brought up, and it was decided that they would rather have TOO many protections for basic Rights than the harm that would be done by not enough.

Such as the California, New York, ect.. firearms bans.

They used YOUR arguments to pass those bans BTW...

Any other of our Rights you'd like to see thrown away on an incorrect judicial interpretation?