What are some good arguments against the United States Bill of Rights?

Question

I have to do a debate in U.S. History on Monday from the federalist point of view (which I'm soooo against) regarding the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. I have a couple sources, but I need some stronger points...

Answer 1

so you have to play the devil's advocate for debate skills?
anyone who gave you thumbs down didn't read the rest of your question.
all i can think of is that it's not easy enough to enforce.
the federalists wanted to leave the Constitution untouched.

Answer 2

2

Answer 3

Here are some of them

1st Amendment: You can't throw a Christmas party on government property. Crosses and other so called religious symbols on government property. The Boy and Girl Scouts can't have their meetings at a school. You can be mocked if you are famous.

2nd Ammendment: There is an anti-gun lobby.

4th Ammendment: see George Bush and his warrentless crusade against terrorism

5th ammendment: your property can be seized to build a football field, school or Walmart. Since it's up to the government to tell you how much your property is worth, they can under cut you and you will have to get a lawyer and sue for more. It also talks about a grand jury and it's a one sided affair where you can't use a lawyer and must answer questions or face prision without having a trial.

Answer 4

See Hamilton's Federalist papers for all good arguments against the Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Answer 5

many human beings attempt to make the argument that the 2d modification says, "A properly regulated military" as a preamble to the "proper to undergo fingers shall no longer be infringed." for sure, they mis-construe the meaning, it truly is that "properly regulated" ability "experienced and practiced" and "military" ability anybody no longer interior the usual military. even with the indisputable fact that, once you attempt to argue hostile to the 2d modification, those subject matters were debated for decades. per chance "military" refers back to the states rights, even with the reality that none of the different bill of Rights allude to at least some thing except human being rights. per chance "properly regulated" means that there is not any "proper" and that's genuinely a privilege granted to those assembly particular criteria (yet then why call it the bill of Rights?). between the acceptable arguments hostile to the right to undergo fingers is so as that the all and various is more advantageous likely to be helpless farm animals, subject to the whims of criminals contained in the authorities and out of doorways interior the streets. If human beings stay in worry, the state can justify a paternalistic society in which your in reality recourse in time of dire desire (worry of lack of life by making use of armed criminals) is to dial 911 and desire someone comes. you've a quite confusing project. per chance attempt to sort the best judgment alongside the lines of at the same time as is "loose speech" no longer allowed (e.g., at the same time as it motives a clean and recent threat, such as falsely shouting "fireplace" in a crowded theatre).

Answer 6

the so call government "they the people " redefine the term liberty, just compare the definition to these stupids laws like seat belts, smoking, contruction code act, how the government can home into your home and take it from you, they place laws that tell people what they can not consume such as drink or smoke or medication "drugs". color of your trash can , color of the siding on most home, look around your eyes will open up your mind

Answer 7

One early argument was that Bill of Rights should be left up to each indivicual state

Answer 8

They give religion to much power to have a free hand in taking away all the other rights

Answer 9

There are lots of reasons, one is the bill was written by a bunch of rich white dudes, the b.o.rts. was exclusive to christians, soc. today does not reflect much of what it sez only what it sez applies only to the rich and corporations.

Answer 10

Is your liberal educator planning a revolution? Funny how you can do that in a free country. Maybe they should move to a good communist or socialist country.