the original constitution consisted of articles 1-7 -- why no bill of rights?

Answer 1

royalrunn.... is on the right track. It has been thought by some scholars that the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were simply tired and they wanted to go home without any further delays which was why they rejected including a Bill of Rights in their original proposal. In a straight-forward examination (without any second-guessing) the reason the delegates at the Convention rejected including a Bill of Rights is because they felt it was unnecessary. They said that the powers delegated to Congress were narrowly enough written that Congress could not legislate in such a way as to violate the rights of the people.

Answer 2

The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They were added at the last minute as a comprimise to ensure that it would be ratified. The writers believed that the government would have restraint and that these rights were fairly self-evident, but many people still had strong memories of the abuses by British Parliment. They wanted to prevent anything like that happening in the future.

Answer 3

Most state ratifications for the original constitution were conditional upon the immediate inclusion of a bill of rights. The constitutional commitee therefore could ratify the political framework without further debate, and address the human rights framework under separate debate.

Answer 4

This article is about bills of rights in general. For the English Bill of Rights of 1689 or the American of 1791, see Bill of Rights 1689 or United States Bill of Rights respectively.

Answer 5

the bill of rights are the first 10 AMENDMENTS to the constitution.

Answer 6

the bill of rights are the first ten amendments. those amendments are people later saying to themselves this too is a right that we are entitled to. so they amended the const. to accommodate it.