The violation of basic rights during British rule led many Americans to fear the powers of the …show more content…
The Constitution itself already stated what the government could and could not do, and as Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Straub). Like the Antifederalists, the Federalists also began to take an opposite perspective on strict versus loose construction of the Constitution. Hamilton took a strict constructionist stance and argued that any power not specifically granted in the Constitution is already forbade, thus making the Bill of Rights completely nonessential. Also, Federalists pointed out that state governments already had sufficient bills of rights that would cover the protection of the people. States already were granted the power to decide on laws regarding their citizens, and it seemed logical to then grant them the power to decide rights, too. If the Constitution and individual state bills of rights already protected basic rights of the people, the Bill of Rights seemed to have a further purpose than solely guarding basic