Summary of the Bill of Rights

Were the saddle of Rights a Necessity to the paper? The besidesl of Rights are a conventional declaration of the legal and well-be make waterd right of the citizens of all state. (Google.com def.) On one hand, Alexander Hamilton argues that there should not be a schnoz of Rights. On the new(prenominal) hand Robert Yates argued that there should be a bill of rights. Citizens should have the right to what they want to do and without a Bill of Rights they wouldnt have that authority. I am here to explain both(prenominal) sides of why there should and should not be a Bill of Rights. Hamilton was against the idea of having a Bill of Rights he thought that it would be a terrible idea. Hamilton supposed that having a Bill of Rights was a favor to citizens and that would be giving them too much berth, he believed the regime should be in control. Hamilton interpret down believed the Bill of Rights to be dangerous. (Federalist 84 pg.3) They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this truly account, would afford a colorable dissimulation to claim more than were granted. (Federalist 84 pg.3) He was arguing that the intercourse cant stir things that they have no power to change, and he believed the citizens would try and take over. He didnt believe citizens deserved power period. Yates on the other hand is entirely for a Bill of Rights. Yates views the genius as a enceinte care should be taken to limit and definite its power, chasten its parts, and guard against an abuse of authority. (Brutus pg.1) The Constitution was designed to protect the citizens rights. Yates supports the Bill of Rights because he cares well-nigh the people thats on a lower floor the state, he believes everyone should have a say so in society.\nWe are entitled to our indwelling rights and we should be treated equally. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or practise authority over their fellows. (Brutus pg.1) No one should...