I think Hamilton had a better grasp on the issue of the Bill of rights. And to a large extent I agree with him, read on:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 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? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government...What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights."
The problem is that from the time of Lincoln foward, the government no longer saw the Constitution as a list only what it was allowed to do but only as set of restrictions. Take property laws for example, the founders would have looked at the Constitution and seen that they did not have a right to act in that area because it wasn't mentioned. Today's political leaders look at the Constitution and see that their involvment is not explicitly forbidden and so they act.
It is a fine intellectual point to guess about but is unable to be settled because it is surmising actions in the future.
It is my opinion that usurping powers not mentioned is easier than usurping powers that are strictly prohibited, especially for today's leftists.
Part of their strategy is confusing the language through linguistic twists while simultaneously confusing values through political correctness, affirmative action, feminism, etc. When values and the meaning of words are ambiguous and ever changing then assuming a different meaning for something that has been understood and accepted for 200 years is easier. That allows for passing unconstitutional laws and that unconstitutional decisions by liberal judges are more likely to stand. No need to go through the cumbersome process of getting the approval of the American people by Constitutional Amendment.
Hamilton knew full well that the 'power to restrict' would be invented out of Congresses power to regulate.
The problem is that from the time of Lincoln forward, the government no longer saw the Constitution as a list only what it was allowed to do but only as set of restrictions.
Yep, that was one of the prime motives in passing the 14th, to restrict further the power of governments to ignore our rights to life, liberty, or property. -- Naturally, they've pretty well ignored it.
Take property laws for example, the founders would have looked at the Constitution and seen that they did not have a right to act in that area because it wasn't mentioned. Today's political leaders look at the Constitution and see that their involvment is not explicitly forbidden and so they act.
It is "explicitly forbidden" but they act anyway, because the people do not demand that they comply with the Constitution.