Summary Of The Federalist Paper No. 84

In the Federalist Paper No. 84, author Alexander Hamilton, under the pseudonym Publius, argues against the need for a bill of rights to be explicitly included in a well-designed Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in the course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, has endeavored to answer most of the objections raised against it. One such objection was raised against the Constitution due to its lack of a bill of rights. Hamilton countered this objection by asserting that because the Constitution had adopted the full common and statute law of Great Britain, rights did not have to be explicitly written or stated in a bill of rights because they were already equally secured. Thus, he believed that the very existence of a bill of rights would

Hamilton’s opinions on including a bill of rights were controversial. Even James Madison, a co-writer of the Federalist Papers, believed that a bill of rights was necessary to support an unshakeable republic. Hamilton tried to use the argument that a bill of rights originated from stipulations between kings and their subjects. He explained that according to their primitive significance, they had no application to constitutions that were based on the power of the people. He used documents such as the Magna Carta from King John and the Petition of Right assented by King Charles I to back up his points. In my opinion, even though he had evidence, his argument was deeply flawed. Although, yes, bills of rights did in fact originate from monarchies, they still have great use in a constitution based on the power of the people. The people alone cannot guarantee that their will and rights will be recognized and respected by the

The English Bill of Rights 1689 had banned the imposition of taxes without approval from Parliament. Because of this, the colonists were able to claim that their right to taxation with representation was being infringed on. They rebelled and punished the government of Great Britain successfully because they could say with certainty that their rights had been infringed upon by Britain because the English Bill of Rights existed. A bill of rights also serves other uses, such as protecting the country from abuse of excessive federal power. It sets rules for due process of laws and reserves all power not already given to the federal government to the state government. Hamilton missed the mark with his arguments and also failed to have the foresight needed to recognize the damage that would be caused by not accounting for the changing future of the United States. The Bill of Rights, as we know it today, is vital to our everyday lives. We now can recognize that history has shown that governments have attempted to violate the rights of the people despite having a bill of