Watch Dave LIVE at 11am PT | 2pm ET talking about last night's shit show!
I've been reading "The Federalist Papers" recently and I've come across a conflic between the Founders. I'm on Federalist 87 and I've come across a passage in Federalist 84 where Hamilton argues against inshrininf rights into a Bill of Rights. As far as i can tell Hamilton makes 2 arguments:
1) That having a list of protected rights will lead to a situation where infringements on other rights become possible on the grounds that the Bill of Rights specifies the "inviolable" rights therefore other rights will become up for grabs by an overreaching government.
2) That a Bill of Rights is essentially unnecessary because the government isn't given the power to infringe upon those rights anyways. Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist 84 ( as stated earlier ) "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?"