Hamilton continues his argument against a bill of rights in an interestingdirection. He asserts that explicitly taking away rights from the government, that noone had even considered as a power they might possess, was actually a dangerousendeavor; “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 pretensefor claiming that power” (Hamilton).On the opposing side were the Anti-Federalists. Men such as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert Yates,opposed to the unchecked power of the newgovernment , and fearing its ability to infringe upon an individuals rights, publishedpapers stating their case. In Anti-Federalist #84 an author known as “Brutus”,thought to be Robert Yates, writes as an example that while the Constitution holdsthe individual states accountable to provide the accused with a fair trial by jury,“are not provisions of this kind as necessary in the general government, as in thatof a particular State? The powers vested in the new Congress extend in many casesto life; they are authorized to provide for the punishment of a variety of capitalcrimes, and no restraint is laid upon them in its exercise” (Brutus).Perhaps the most vehement Anti-Federalist, was George Mason of Virginia. Hehad rallied for, and indeed wrote and had passed, a Bill of Rights for his home statesome fifteen years before the United States would adopt its own. An adamantsupporter of a weak central government, and more power being given to theindividual states, Mason in fact refused to sign any draft of the constitution lacking aformal Bill of Rights. On September 12, 1787, with his offer to write the bill himself rejected, Mason stormed out of Philadelphia, refusing to support the Constitution.Once a strong ally for the ratification of the new constitution, now George Mason“was one of the leaders in the fight against ratification of the new Constitution. He
Leave a Comment