Reference no: EM133568773

Case Study: Primary Source Analysis- Read the excerpt from Federalist No. 84 and answer the questions. 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 colorable 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.

Question 1. Why does Hamilton believe that it is unnecessary to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution?

Question 2. Explain Hamilton's argument that the addition of a Bill of Rights would even be dangerous.

Question 3. In your opinion, do you believe that a Bill of Rights would protect or limit individual rights and liberty?