8.8k views
3 votes
Do you agree or disagree with Hamilton and Madison’s initial logic that the bill.of rights was essentially unnecessary ?

User Termato
by
8.4k points

1 Answer

7 votes

Answer:

No, I do not agree with their view.

Hamilton and Madison believed that a bill of rights would limit the rights that would be protected by the constitution, because some rights would be specified while others wouldn't.

I do not agree, and I believe that it is important that the constitution has a bill of rights precisely because it states clearly what rights should be protected, and in which manner.

If new rights are found or accepted by society as a whole in the future, new amendments to the bill of rights can be added.

User Amitav Roy
by
8.7k points
Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.