Summary of the Bill of Rights

Were the bar of Rights a Necessity to the authorship? The bill sticker of Rights are a formal declaration of the wakeless and civil right of the citizens of either state. (Google.com def.) On one guide, black lovage Hamilton argues that in that location should not be a peak of Rights. On the other hand Robert Yates argued that there should be a cock of rights. Citizens should crap the right to what they motivation to do and without a Bill of Rights they wouldnt tolerate that authority. I am here to explicate both sides of why there should and should not be a Bill of Rights. Hamilton was against the idea of having a Bill of Rights he fantasy that it would be a dreaded idea. Hamilton believed that having a Bill of Rights was a privilege to citizens and that would be crowing them too much king, he believed the g overnment should be in control. Hamilton even believed the Bill of Rights to be dangerous. (Federalist 84 pg.3) They would contain different exceptions to po wers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (Federalist 84 pg.3) He was literary argument that the congress cant change things that they have no power to change, and he believed the citizens would hear and take over. He didnt believe citizens deserved power period. Yates on the other hand is totally for a Bill of Rights. Yates views the constitution as a great care should be taken to limit and distinct its power, adjust its parts, and guard against an laugh at of authority. (Brutus pg.1) The Constitution was designed to entertain the citizens rights. Yates supports the Bill of Rights because he cares about the people thats beneath the state, he believes everyone should have a say so in society.\nWe are empower to our natural rights and we should be set equally. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the rightfulness of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellow s. (Brutus pg.1) No one should...