Why is it necessary to add the "Bill of rights" to the US Constitution.?

Question

I meant "why it was necessary to add the "bill of rights" to the us constitution"

Answer 1

The Bill of Rights was necessary because several states refused to ratify the Constitution unless our rights were specifically enumerated.

During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President" would become a king, and objected to the federal court system in the proposed Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, described his concern over the lack of a Bill of Rights, among other criticisms. In answer to the argument that a list of rights might be interpreted as being exhaustive, Jefferson wrote to Madison, "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.

The best and most influential of the articles and speeches criticizing the Constitution were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers, in allusion to the Federalist Papers which had supported the creation of a stronger federal government. One of these, an essay "On the lack of a Bill of Rights," later called "Antifederalist Number 84," was written under the pseudonym Brutus, probably by Robert Yates. In response to the Federalist view that it was unnecessary to protect the people against powers that the government would not be granted, "Brutus" wrote:

"We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution."

Yates continued with a dark implication directed against the Framers: "Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights (internal quotes and citations omitted).

However, many people felt strongly that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary.

Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not necessary for the new Constitution. The constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. Many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John....It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84.

The Ninth Amendment was proposed as a compromise to the opposition to a Bill of Rights, but has been largely ineffective.

Answer 2

It was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. Even back then, there was political division in the government. Some people felt that the Constitution should define the basic rights and freedoms of the citizens.

There were originally 12 amendments proposed. Ten were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. One was ratified over 200 years later (as the 27th Amendment), and the final one has not been ratified yet (and probably never will).

Answer 3

It actually just states that congress shall have the power to make any laws necessary to follow the consitution. Not create oppressive government like the liberals have done throughout history. I guess you can pat yourself on the back for being a liberal who believes in oppressive government, the Federal Reserve, making it a crime for a famer to grow more wheat then under price control laws, etc. Never could understand why after America fought against taxation from oppressive government without representation, why liberals FIGHT for oppressive government with representation.

Answer 4

I dont understand the quesiton, since the Bill of Rights were already added to the constitution.

Basically, it was to clarify what rights as Americans we are guaranteed.

Answer 5

Because a Gypsy fortune teller told the Founding Fathers that in the 21st century, a group called "conservative Republicans" would try squash the freedoms that they held so dear.