George Mason was the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and maintained his Anti-Federalist viewpoints despite being from a primarily Federalist part of Virginia. It is because of George Mason’s comment on September 12, 1787 that the bill of rights became a discussion point. He simple stated he, “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights,” because he thought it would give “great quiet” to the people. He thought it would only take a few hours. Hence, having the plan, the Constitution here, be prefaced by a list of enumerated rights cold give the people a peace of mind to know the rights they held dear would be protected. He then made no fanfare just seconded a motion to prepare a bill made by Elbridge
…show more content…
Gordon S. Wood states, “In the federal Constitution, there was manifestly no need for a conventional bill of rights, since every power that was not expressly delegated to the general government was reserved in the people’s hands.” Put another way, “We retain all those rights which we have not given away to the general government.” So, to the Federalists, it is not necessary to put on paper every right or liberty that is important or available to the people of America. Correspondingly, the Federalists wanted stronger government, but not necessarily a Bill of …show more content…
First, there were extensive bills of rights already in existence at the state level.” The state bills of rights would allow for an inventory of rights available to the people within that state. Donald Lutz continues, “Second, the political process defined by the national Constitution was viewed by Federalists as so balanced and limited in powers that it could not impinge upon rights…” Therefore, the actual wording of the constitution and the political process outlined within the constitution would not allow the people’s individual rights to be imposed upon. Jack Rakove completes his essay by stating, “There is a genuine dilemma in declaring rights that makes the Federalist position more defensible than the standard story recognizes, and we are grappling with its consequences still, every time we ask whether there can be other sources of fundamental rights than text of the Constitution itself.” Hindsight always informs a position and the Federalist position can be seen as being on the wrong side of history, but this is a mistaken perspective at least according to Jack
Gordon S. Wood states, “In the federal Constitution, there was manifestly no need for a conventional bill of rights, since every power that was not expressly delegated to the general government was reserved in the people’s hands.” Put another way, “We retain all those rights which we have not given away to the general government.” So, to the Federalists, it is not necessary to put on paper every right or liberty that is important or available to the people of America. Correspondingly, the Federalists wanted stronger government, but not necessarily a Bill of …show more content…
First, there were extensive bills of rights already in existence at the state level.” The state bills of rights would allow for an inventory of rights available to the people within that state. Donald Lutz continues, “Second, the political process defined by the national Constitution was viewed by Federalists as so balanced and limited in powers that it could not impinge upon rights…” Therefore, the actual wording of the constitution and the political process outlined within the constitution would not allow the people’s individual rights to be imposed upon. Jack Rakove completes his essay by stating, “There is a genuine dilemma in declaring rights that makes the Federalist position more defensible than the standard story recognizes, and we are grappling with its consequences still, every time we ask whether there can be other sources of fundamental rights than text of the Constitution itself.” Hindsight always informs a position and the Federalist position can be seen as being on the wrong side of history, but this is a mistaken perspective at least according to Jack