Question

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
—Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Paper 84


What point is Alexander Hamilton making?
A.
The Constitution did not need a bill of rights.
B.
The Constitution is stronger with a bill of rights.
C.
A bill of rights was necessary for ratification.
D.
A bill of rights should include only certain rights.

Answer 1

A. The Constitution did not need a bill of rights.

Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 84 that a separate bill of rights was unnecessary and might even be dangerous, because the Constitution's structure already limited government and listing specific rights could imply unlisted powers were allowed.