Summary of the Bill of Rights

Were the beat of Rights a requisite to the Constitution? The putz of Rights be a formal announcement of the legal and civil safe of the citizens of any state. (Google.com def.) On iodine sink, Alexander Hamilton argues that t here should non be a bear down of Rights. On the new(prenominal) hand Robert Yates argued that there should be a bill of in force(p)s. Citizens should ready the right to what they want to do and without a charge of Rights they wouldnt acquire that liberty. I am here to explain both sides of wherefore there should and should not be a Bill of Rights. Hamilton was against the whim of having a Bill of Rights he thought that it would be a terrible idea. Hamilton believed that having a Bill of Rights was a privilege to citizens and that would be giving them too overmuch power, he believed the government should be in control. Hamilton even believed the Bill of Rights to be dangerous. (Federalist 84 pg.3) They would stockpile various exceptions to po wers not given; and, on this very account, would cede a colorable pretext to learn more than were granted. (Federalist 84 pg.3) He was arguing that the congress bedt change things that they have no power to change, and he believed the citizens would try and take over. He didnt believe citizens be power period. Yates on the other hand is totally for a Bill of Rights. Yates views the constitution as a great safekeeping should be taken to fasten and definite its power, adjust its parts, and rubber against an abuse of authority. (Brutus pg.1) The Constitution was intentional to protect the citizens rights. Yates supports the Bill of Rights because he c ares about the masses thats beneath the state, he believes every unrivaled should have a sound out so in society.\nWe are entitled to our natural rights and we should be treated equally. No atomic number 53 man, therefore, or any variance of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to deliver or exercise authority over their fellows. (Brutus pg.1) No one should...