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?

Answer 1

And the proposed constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the union." Hamilton's argument is ultimately that a bill of rights should not be added to the Constitution, because the entire Constitution is in itself a bill of rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

A way to catalog the sensation of Alexander Hamilton about the adding of the bill of rights, could be ¨redundant¨, he stated that the constitution content was enough for the moment, or at least not mix together both documents, the democracy of the age, was archaic in some ways, kingdoms or territories where this term didn´t exist started to adopt new behaviors, the nobles, and powerful people, allowing progressively the intervention of other social classes.

For this reason, the ¨first rights¨ formalization was a positive change for the moment, however, the constant evolution of the society, asks for something more ¨malleable¨ and appropriate for constant evolving (since depending on the time or age, some practices have different ways to proceed), so having the constitution guaranteeing different rights and duties, was good enough for the moment, without mixing up both ¨documents of power¨, this way having a more ¨open mind¨for future modifications, or more democratic implementations.