Was the Bill of Rights Necessary essays

Was the Bill of Rights Necessary essays In 1787, a group of men got together in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation under which the United States had been operating. When the Constitutional Convention decided to propose a federal government instead, they faced the enormous challenge of persuading the American people to accept the central government they had learned to distrust and fear. Many were hesitant to give up the Confederation that helped bring them through the American Revolution that brought them freedom from a great tyrant. Because of this, a great debate arouse between the federalists and the anti-federalists. The great question became, Is a bill of rights necessary? Without it, the United States constitution would have never lasted. Contrary to popular opinion, the United States Constitution does not give any rights to the people. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, a man's rights are given to him by his creator. The constitution merely exists to limit and restrain government powers. Publius states in Federalist 84, Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. (Publius, 1787, 8). Federalists believed that the bill of rights was not needed to protect the peoples rights and that the constitution was a bill of rights in itself (Publius, 1787, 12). Why forbid someone to do something, if they have no power to do it in the first place? The federalists argument did not satisfy the American people. It was their experience and belief, that government was by nature corrupt, and could never be trusted to stay within the constraints of the constitution. If man were perfect, we would not need a government to protect our rights. In history, government has been found to abuse their power, and abridge the public liberty (Brutus, 1787, 5). For this reason, men have always worked to create ways to keep their fundamental rights from being en...