[zeugma]

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?

Mime,

Your point is well taken. The Federalists argued strenuously against the adoption of the "Bill of Rights" because they thought it was dangerous to enumerate such specificity in the constitution.

Seems that time has borne out both sides of the argument IMO. The Federalists were right that the government would take the stance that "anything not specifically prohibited is allowed". At the same time, the Anti-Federalists were right that without at least those guarantees listed, that government power would get out of hand because there would effectively be no restraints on it.

You see both sides still argued here today on this board of those who think a "right to privacy" is just a "made up" right because it isn't listed in print, and those who point to the 9th and 10th amendments as showing that we have many more rights as human beings that exist whether they are specifically enumerated or now.

Personally, I'm glad the Anti-Federalists won the day. One thing I find to be interesting from a historical standpoint is that most folks know about the Federalist Papers, which were, among other things, an argument against the Bill of Rights, yet few are even aware of the Letters from a Federal Farmer, penned by those who ultimately carried the day.

[Loud Mime]

I will disagree with your point that most folks know about the Federalist Papers. In preparing for my book I have been asking people about the Papers; many have heard of them. Yet only two in two years have known their purpose; not one has known of their history.