Federalist 84 – Hamilton Opposes a Bill of Rights for Good Reason

Constitution.org ^ | 1788 | Alexander Hamilton

[Loud Mime]

Hamilton is so focused on the beauty of his new Constitution that he does not fully consider the dangers that would rise from the document's ambiguities. But he was correct in his assertion that the Bill of Rights would provide a foundation for rights not granted.

[Maceman]

But he was correct in his assertion that the Bill of Rights would provide a foundation for rights not granted.

The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them.

[Loud Mime]

Ping

When liberals claim they have a right to health care from the federal government, cite Federalist 84 and watch the deer in the headlights.

[Loud Mime]

The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them.

It does both.

[ConservativeAtLast]

Anytime I discuss the first ten amendments to the Constitution, I always refer to them as the “Bill of Prohibitions”. As correctly stated above, no government can grant rights. Governments often do their best to suppress natural rights, and the “Bill of Prohibitions” lists rights that our government is specifically prohibited from trampling upon.

I’d never thought about the dangers of specifically listing these prohibitions, but then again, I’m constantly amazed at how timeless the thoughts and actions of our founders were.

[screaminsunshine]

If we had followed the Constitution any of our present socialists laws would of had to be done by amendment. How far Commie would we of gone if all this crap had to be ratified by 2/3 of State legislatures. No we had a good system. Unfortunatly it is history. None of this Communism would be possible if we had of stayed with the us Constitution. We are going to pay a terrible price. There is no good outcome possible at this point.

[Loud Mime]

Government can grant rights within a legalistic framework; it’s their laws and their power to exercise.

The Second Amendment is a good example.

[MrB]

The Ninth and Tenth SHOULD have covered everything he was worried about.

Notice something in the present debates over health care and cap & tax -

NO ONE is arguing that the fedgov is not Constitutionally authorized to do these things. It’s as if the Constitution is now a dead letter... which, indeed, it is in the minds of the statists.

[bamahead]

No, it does NOT. Rights are INHERENT, endowed by the Creator. Government is not a power that has capability to confer rights on humanity.

Perhaps you need to re-read this document and the Declaration of our founding...for clarity.

[Huck]

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years, and I’ve concluded that we were screwed either way. The only safeguard against the gubmint is a populace that jealously and vigilantly guards and preserves its own freedom. Short of that, scheming politicians, lawyers, and thieves will always find a way to have their way.

[Loud Mime]

The failure of our government may be traced back to the 17th Amendment; the States lost their Senators. Those Senators became party-rats instead of Statesmen. The decay took time to spread its roots and then attacked our government with socialist laws and incredible debt.

There is more to this; I'll have it in September.

[bamahead]

Government can grant rights within a legalistic framework; it’s their laws and their power to exercise.

This is the Liberal viewpoint...oft stated publicly by the likes of Obama, and John Kerry.

Any Conservative worth his salt will tell you exactly the opposite. We are not the government's subjects, for it to grant and remove rights as it sees fit. Those rights are embedded in our own humanity.

[bamahead]

It appears some here need a refresher on the Constitution, folks



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[Maceman]

No, it does NOT. Rights are INHERENT, endowed by the Creator. Government is not a power that has capability to confer rights on humanity. Perhaps you need to re-read this document and the Declaration of our founding...for clarity.

Rights that are inalienable are not the government's to grant. If they were, they could just as easily be revoked by the same government.

If you can direct me to language in the Constitution or the Declaration that references the government granting rights, I will appreciate the education.

[bamahead]

The failure of our government may be traced back to the 17th Amendment; the States lost their Senators.

I'm with you on that one. There was a post a few days ago discussing exactly this.

How the 17th Amendment Has Stolen Your Freedom

[bamahead]

I agree with you 100% Mace. I think you want the other guy to point that out to you.

[joe fonebone]

ding ding ding.................we have a winner!!!!

[Loud Mime]

I acknowledge your belief that rights are inherent; and yes, I have read the Declaration carefully and I study the Constitution and our history of abusing it.

Your point that government is not a power that has a capability to confer rights on humanity is partially valid. But there is more to the argument.

George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

I believe I made it clear by putting my remark in the context of law. You put yours in a theological context. Please reconsider your argument with those differences in mind. We are talking of two different authorities. Despite your adherence to one, I believe it is prudent to admit that both exist and that both have the power to enforce their will in ways that they see fit.

[Loud Mime]

Government can grant rights within a legalistic framework; it’s their laws and their power to exercise.

This is the Liberal viewpoint...oft stated publicly by the likes of Obama, and John Kerry.

----------------

It depends on the laws enacted and power exercised, doesn't it?

[MamaTexan]

When liberals claim they have a right to health care from the federal government, cite Federalist 84 and watch the deer in the headlights.

LOL! I never bother citing anything. Just say CONSTITUTION...and their eyes glaze over . :-)