should the bill of rights have been added to the constitution?

Answer 1

A lot of states wouldn't have joined the Union if it hadn't. In that sense, there is no other historical alternative the country could have taken than adding the bill of rights.

In one sense, the Bill of Rights has done a lot of harm to our national unity today. Some people blame the 10th amendment on the start of the Civil War. And now there are all sorts of people misquoting the 2nd amendment in order to protect the right of civilians to be armed and dangerous.

In another, the Bill of Rights provides a perfect example of how America works. The language is stated very simply, but in such a way that can continuously be changed. That's what America is all about, anyway. We take simple doctrines and expad on them through changing circumstances and changing ideas. Look at how the 9th amendment is quoted on both sides of the abortion debate these days. America is about the freedom to change the world around us. So it's a good thing the Bill of Rights aren't set in stone.

I think the addition was a good idea. Without them, the people would really have no power to exercise over its own government. Without a Bill of Rights, we would have given the federal government a total cart blanc. But because of those amendments, we can challenge the actions of our own officials in the Supreme Court.

Answer 2

Yes, and I'm glad it was added.
That, and the protection of borders, is really why the rest of the Constitution even exists, as far as I am concerned.

My ancestors threw tea overboard at the Boston Tea Party. I'm vehement about this subject.

The US Constitution is one of the most brilliant human documents and laws ever created.

Answer 3

Yes, for it never would have been ratified without it.

Personal liberties needed to be addressed; not that the rights didn't exist, but that the government needed to be reminded that their powers had limits. Unfortunately, a lesson 220 years later that the government has forgotten.