re: #17 ggt

I’m actually having a hard time keeping-up. The main argument is that a Bill of Rights would be redundant. Enumerating rights that were already guaranteed in the Constitution and therefore creating a situation in which other rights, not named, could be infringed.

Which, I think, is a valid argument and is something we see today with less educated people. The concept of the people having all the power and not the government is difficult for a lot of people to understand. I hear “the Constitution gives individuals this or that” when in realty, the Constituion limits government.

Overall, I think we are fortunate to have the Bill of Rights.

Madison, if I’m following it correctly, was for.

The book is almost like a play-by-play. I is probably not a good choice for audio.

One of the critical arguments against the Bill of Rights is in The Federalist Papers No. 84 - Hamilton wrote it, but we don’t know exactly who wrote what Federalist paper. It could have been Madison.

Madison’s a very prudent man, let me just put it that way. Originally, he’s against a bicameral legislature partly because Congress should be representative of the people wholly (i.e. why the Speaker is third in line for the Presidency). Later he announces the wisdom of having a Senate like as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and there wasn’t one single argument against it.

You might want to look at Federalist 84 - it isn’t long, and it does demonstrate the more concrete provisions the Constitution itself has against infringement of rights. Isn’t “parchment barriers” Madison’s phrase?