Stevens, Kenneth
Primary Source Document
The Bill of Rights
Arguments Made in Support of Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution
At the Constitutional Convention George Mason argued the need for a Bill of Rights in the
Constitution. “Col. Mason…wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights, & would
second a Motion if made for the purpose—it would give great quiet to the people; and with the
aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours. Mr. Gerry concurred in the
idea & moved for a Committee to prepare a Bill of Rights. Col. Mason 2ded the motion. The
motion failed by a vote of 10 against and 0 in favor. [Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the
Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2 (1911): 587-588.]
The Convention concluded in September 1787, but Mason continued to object. The following was
circulated as early as October 1787. “There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the
general Government being paramount to the Laws and Constitutions of the several States,, the
Declaration of Rights in the separate States are no Security….There is no Declaration of any
kind for preserving the Liberty of the Press, the Tryal by Jury in civil Causes; nor against the
Danger of standing Armys in time of peace.” [William Dudley, ed., The Creation of the
Constitution: Opposing Viewpoints (1995), p.237.]
“Brutus” [probably Robert Yates of New York] Anti-Federalist Papers # 2, Nov 1, 1787. “…. In
forming a constitution for such a country, great care should be taken to limit and define its
powers, adjust its parts, and guard against an abuse of authority…. The constitution proposed to
your acceptance, is designed not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The
principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and
precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made – But on
this subject there is almost an entire silence…. Those who have governed, have been found in all
ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced people
in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments
of their rulers.” [Constitution.org website].
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787. “I will now add what I do not like
[about the proposed Constitution]. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly &
without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against
standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas
corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land…. Let me add
that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general
or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.”
[TeachingAmericanHistory.org website].
The Bill of Rights
Arguments Made Against Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution
Alexander Hamilton. “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 press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? A Bill of Rights was “not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain
various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable
pretext to claim more than were granted.” [Federalist # 84]/
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” had little faith in the idea of a national Bill of
Rights. He expressed that view in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on October 17, 1788.
“…Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is
most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by
overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia, I have seen the bill of rights violated in every
instance where it has been opposed to a popular current….Wherever the real power in a
Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the
majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not
from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the
Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
[TeachingAmericanHistory.org website].
Noah Webster, “On the Absurdity of a Bill of Rights,” December 1787. “One of the principal
objections to the new Federal Constitution is, that it contains no Bill of Rights. This objection, I
presume to assert, is founded on ideas of government that are totally false…. One half the people
who read books, have so little ability to apply what they read to their own practice, that they had
better not read at all…. A standing Bill of Rights is absurd, because no constitutions, in a free
government, can be unalterable. The present generation have indeed a right to declare what they
deem a privilege; but they have no right to say what the next generation shall deem a privilege….
But it will be enquired, have we then no right to say, that trial by jury, the liberty of the press, the
habeas corpus writ and other invaluable privileges, shall never be infringed nor destroyed? By
no means…. The right of jury-trial, which we deem invaluable, may in future cease to be a
privilege; Have we then a right to say that our posterity shall not be judges of their own
circumstances? The very attempt to make perpetual constitutions, is the assumption of a right to
control the opinions of future generations….” [American Magazine (Dec. 1787)].