I'm seeing all these statements with no proof...
Answers 1Add Yours
There were those who believed that the Constitution should be passed without a Bill of Rights, but there were also those who knew that the Constitution would never be ratified within their states without a Bill of Rights, and without a clear view of what the government could NOT do. The Bill of Rights guarantees a limitation of the central government and protects individual and state rights. On the other hand, there were those who did not support the Bill of Rights believing that the time would come that the central government would claim individuals rights were limited to those held within. Alexander Hamilton, in opposition to the Bill of Rights said, "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."
The Federalist Papers/ #84