Bill of Rights

At first I agreed with Alexander Hamilton's argument that there is no need for a Bill of Rights. He explained that everything that would be in the Bill of Rights is already in the Constitution. He stated that everything required to include is already "done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution," and there is nothing exclusively addressed in the Bill of Rights that is not already well written and clear in the Constitution. However, after reading his proposition another time, I began to disagree with his argument. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 laws of the Constitution essentially, and that is important because it is a layout of the most focal and critical parts of the Constitution. It needs to be separate and it needs to be part of the Constitution because it lays out the almost "mission statement" of the Constitution. After doing minimal research about the Bill of Rights (just now), some people during the time (1789 ish), thought that the document would be insufficient and incomplete without mentioning the human rights and the goals for the new Constitution at the beginning of the document. However, others were extremely opposed to the idea of the Bill of Rights for various reasons. Personally I think that there is no down side to having a Bill of Rights. Who does not what to have the freedoms and the protections of the people laid out for them? Why is it bad to enforce human rights? I think that Alexander Hamilton's argument was actually weak because he had no way of putting down the Bill of Rights, other than saying that it was already in the Constitution, but why can't it be said again, or said in an even better way? Clearly the Bill of Rights has developed today and it an integral part of our government and Constitution