2 ms·
If I recall correctly, Madison’s original position was that the content of the Bill of Rights (and more besides) was already implied by the Constitution, and th
by jacobolus 9y ago
If I recall correctly, Madison’s original position was that the content of the Bill of Rights (and more besides) was already implied by the Constitution, and that the document was superfluous and possibly harmful if it led to people considering rights not explicitly mentioned to not also be part of the Constitution. He changed his mind, however, as a pragmatic gesture toward unity and compromise with the Anti-Federalists.
- Spooky23 9y agoHe was very wrong. The sedition acts made it pretty clear that without explicit protection, the government can and will abuse its powers.
- marcoperaza 9y agoThe position that he and Hamilton took was somewhat incoherent in my opinion, since the Constitution did list rights, like the prohibition on ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and the guarantee of habeas corpus except in times of insurrection. Hamilton made an interesting argument in Federalist 84, that rights like freedom of the press and of speech are too vague to belong in a legal document, since their interpretation would necessarily be determined solely by political winds. Compare to the more concrete prohibition of ex post facto laws, for example. Nevertheless, the majority of the Bill of Rights turned out to be more like those concrete provisions. The First and Second Amendments are the most notable exceptions, and his predictions have partially panned out. Thankfully, it's been for the better anyway: freedom of speech as we know it would not exist without the First Amendment.