Because of this he believed the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. He wrote:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in 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 which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable 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. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
Obviously, even Hamilton didn’t believe that the central government that the States were creating had any power not specifically enumerated in that document. According to him, those who would later argue that the central government had powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution were “men disposed to usurp”. For far too long those disposed to usurp have held power.
Hamilton himself was a man disposed to usurp. I ‘d like you to point to me where the Constitution delegates the power to assume state debts or create a central bank, to name just a couple of Hamilton pet projects.
Just so. Many have tried to drive home the point that our founding documents are nothing more than script on pieces of parchment. In and of themselves they have no power except to the extent our "leaders" are disposed to follow them. However, as you point out, governments are not generally inclined to limit their powers but historically increase and consolidate them. Tyrants will almost always find a way.
The States and We The Sovereign People were to be the guardians of those documents and our form of government. The story of us is that we allowed a federal government, utilizing surreptious schemes and smoke and mirrors, to have their way. OUR fault, not theirs. They were just doing what governments do when they believe they can get away with it. If history holds any lessons, it's that governments almost always succeed. Will the American People and what should have been our first line of defense, the States, prove capable of beating the odds?
If we want our country back we'll have to take it back, THEY won't give it back.
Hamilton also understood that the MEANS of carrying out the ENDS specified in the Constitution were not specified but implied. Anything not specifically excluded by the document, or contrary to its spirit, and which is pursuant to the exercise of enumerated powers is constitutional.
Contrary to the commonly believed Jeffersonian lies Hamilton was a great patriot totally devoted to the Union from his teenage years. He was not a monarchist in any sense.