No, I do not. While the quote reflects a viewpoint that emphasizes trust in the people and the Constitution itself, history has shown that the Bill of Rights was deemed necessary to address concerns about protecting individual liberties from potential government infringement.
What informs my position towards the quote?
The quote is a perspective that aligns with the Federalist position during the debates over the ratification of the United States Constitution. It seems to suggest that the preamble itself, affirming that "We the People" ordain and establish the Constitution, is sufficient to ensure that the government will not violate people's rights, and therefore, an additional Bill of Rights may be unnecessary.
While the sentiment expressed in the quote emphasizes trust in the people's role in creating the Constitution, it is important to note that the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution did indeed lead to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, who were concerned about the potential for an overly powerful central government, insisted on adding explicit protections for individual liberties.
Ultimately, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added to address these concerns and provide specific protections for individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights serves as a critical safeguard against potential government overreach, and its inclusion was a compromise that helped secure the ratification of the Constitution.
In summary, while the quote reflects a viewpoint that emphasizes trust in the people and the Constitution itself, history has shown that the Bill of Rights was deemed necessary to address concerns about protecting individual liberties from potential government infringement.