Final answer:
In 1789, faced with the debate on the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, it would be reasonable to agree with Brutus that a specific bill of rights should be added. The framers of the Constitution initially did not include a bill of rights, but in response to concerns raised by those who opposed ratification, the Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
Step-by-step explanation:
In 1789, as a United States citizen faced with the debate on the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, it would be reasonable to agree with Brutus that a specific bill of rights should be added. Brutus argued that without a bill of rights, the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties. The Federalists, represented by Publius, supported the Constitution as written, believing that the rights of citizens were already protected sufficiently by the main body of the Constitution.
The issue of including a bill of rights in the Constitution was a contentious one. The framers of the Constitution initially did not include a bill of rights because they believed they had more pressing concerns, such as keeping the fragile union together. However, in response to the concerns raised by those who opposed ratification, the Federalists agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution. This led to the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791, which consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution and explicitly protects individual rights.
Thus, considering the historical context and the outcome, it would be reasonable to agree with Brutus and support the addition of a specific bill of rights to the Constitution in 1789.