Federalist Paper #84, titled “Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered,” is one of the most important essays in the Federalist Papers series, as it addresses the contentious issue of the absence of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argues against the necessity of a Bill of Rights, presenting a detailed defense of the Constitution as it stands.

Hamilton begins by challenging the notion that a Bill of Rights is essential to protect individual liberties. He argues that the Constitution itself, with its system of checks and balances and separation of powers, provides sufficient safeguards against government overreach. Hamilton writes, “Bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” He believes that explicitly listing certain rights could imply that any rights not listed were not protected, potentially limiting individual freedoms.

Hamilton further argues that the Constitution already contains provisions that function as a Bill of Rights. He points to specific clauses that protect individual liberties, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, the guarantee of habeas corpus, and the trial by jury in criminal cases. He writes, “The Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights.”

Hamilton also expresses concern that including a Bill of Rights could provide a pretext for the government to assert powers not granted by the Constitution. He warns that any enumeration of rights could be interpreted as an exhaustive list, thereby justifying government actions that infringe on rights not explicitly mentioned. He states, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Another critical point Hamilton makes is that the state constitutions already contain bills of rights, and these protections would remain in effect under the new federal Constitution. He argues that the states are better equipped to protect individual rights and that the federal government should not infringe upon these state-level protections.

Hamilton concludes by asserting that the Constitution, as written, provides a robust framework for protecting individual liberties without the need for a separate Bill of Rights. He argues that the mechanisms within the Constitution are sufficient to prevent tyranny and ensure that the government remains accountable to the people.

Key Takeaways:

1. Hamilton argues that a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the Constitution itself provides sufficient safeguards against government overreach.
2. Listing specific rights could be dangerous, implying that any rights not listed are not protected, potentially limiting individual freedoms.
3. The Constitution already includes provisions that protect individual liberties, functioning as a de facto Bill of Rights.
4. State constitutions contain bills of rights, and these protections would remain under the new federal Constitution.
5. Hamilton warns that a Bill of Rights could justify government actions that infringe on rights not explicitly mentioned.