WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Hamilton argued that the federal government could act only where power had been expressly granted in the Constitution, so a Bill of Rights would provide no added protection. Brutus responded that without one, the federal government would vastly overstep its few enumerated powers. Given how immeasurably far the federal government exceeds those bounds today, despite the Bill of Rights’ constraints, we should be thankful Brutus’ view prevailed two centuries ago. And we should remember his logic, if we would keep faith with our founders’ vision of America as a land of freedom rather than a land of force.

> Hamilton argued that the federal government could act only where power had been expressly granted in the Constitution, so a Bill of Rights would provide no added protection. Brutus responded that without one, the federal government would vastly overstep its few enumerated powers. Given how immeasurably far the federal government exceeds those bounds today, despite the Bill of Rights’ constraints, we should be thankful Brutus’ view prevailed two centuries ago. And we should remember his logic, if we would keep faith with our founders’ vision of America as a land of freedom rather than a land of force.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Human rights cannot be parted with. They can be declined. They can be suppressed. But they can't be taken away or thrown away. They are inherent to all human beings.