Why did people not want the Bill of Rights in the Constitution?
Asked by: Lorena Abernathy | Last update: January 27, 2026Score: 4.2/5 (66 votes)
Some people, known as Federalists, initially opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution because they believed the new federal government's powers were already strictly limited and enumerated, making explicit rights redundant or even dangerous; they feared listing some rights might imply others not listed were unprotected, while Anti-Federalists argued a Bill of Rights was essential to safeguard individual liberties from a potentially powerful central government.
Why did people not like the Bill of Rights?
They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out. But the Constitution's Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns.
What was the argument against putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution?
James Madison and other supporters of the Constitution argued that a bill of rights wasn't necessary because - “the government can only exert the powers specified by the Constitution.” But they agreed to consider adding amendments when ratification was in danger in the key state of Massachusetts.
Why did people think a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary?
The Federalists felt a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. They said since the new Constitution limited the power of the government and since the people kept control of everything they did not say the government could do, no bill of individual rights was needed.
Why do we not need a Bill of Rights?
By creating a list of people's rights, then anything not on the list was therefore not protected. Madison and the other Framers believed that we have natural rights and they are too numerous to list. So, writing a list would be counterproductive.
Why wasn’t the Bill of Rights originally in the US Constitution? - James Coll
What is the main argument against the Bill of Rights?
Some said a bill of rights would not guarantee but restrict freedoms—that a list of specific rights would imply that they were granted by the government rather than inherent in nature.
What would happen if we had no Bill of Rights?
Government control, unfairness, and no individuality would be the state of the US if not for the Bill of Rights. People would not be able to do things that are unique to their personality like speaking or practicing a language.
What was the main disagreement about adding a Bill of Rights?
Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights. Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed.
What are the issues of the Bill of Rights?
It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States.
Why did the Bill of Rights not strongly affect citizens?
“For the first century of its existence, the Bill of Rights did not appear in many Supreme Court cases, principally because the Court ruled that it only applied to the national government, and the state governments exercised the most power over citizens' lives,” said Linda Monk, author of “The Bill of Rights: A User's ...
What argument was given for not needing a Bill of Rights?
In response, supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered.
Why was adding the Bill of Rights controversial?
The Bill of Rights was controversial because it resembled concessions from monarchs in British history. Some opposed the Bill of Rights fearing it might limit government power or delay the Constitution. James Madison proposed amendments that formed the Bill of Rights to address concerns about protecting freedoms.
Who opposed the Constitution because it has no Bill of Rights?
The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.
How did people feel about the Bill of Rights?
Even those who opposed the initial inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original Constitution did so not because they did not support the Bill of Rights' libertarian guarantees, but rather, because they believed it was unnecessary to set forth these rights expressly.
What are the weaknesses of the Bill of Rights?
Areas of Weakness
While the Bill of Rights is strong in protecting speech, the press and religion, it hosts some weaknesses in the power distribution of the judiciary and in definition of roles of the legislature. The Bill of Rights gives unelected judges powers similar to those of the executive.
Why did people oppose the Constitution?
The Anti-Federalists feared that the new Constitution gave the national government too much power. And that this new government—led by a new group of distant, out-of-touch political elites—would: Seize all political power. Swallow up the states—the governments that were closest to the people themselves.
Did the founding fathers put God in the Constitution?
No, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention God or a supreme being in its main text, a deliberate choice by the Founding Fathers to establish a secular government and protect religious freedom, though it does contain a date reference ("Year of our Lord") and the First Amendment prevents religious tests for office, reflecting a consensus on separation of church and state despite their personal faith.
What were the arguments for a Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the Constitution lacked limits on government power. Federalists advocated for a strong national government. They believed the people and states automatically kept any powers not given to the federal government.
Is discrimination in the Bill of Rights?
Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F.
Why were people against the Bill of Rights?
The birth of the Bill of Rights was controversial: Anti-Federalists demanded a concise constitution, which clearly delineated the people's rights and the limitations of the power of government. Federalists opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights as unnecessary.
Why did they think a Bill of Rights was unnecessary?
It was considered unnecessary because the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people.
What are two ways the Bill of Rights opposes?
The English Bill of Rights opposed the divine right of kings, by making monarchs subject to a kind of check and balances by Parliament which limited their power, and by removing the monarch as head of the church and making religion non-political.
Was the Bill of Rights necessary?
According to the National Archives, “The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers had not promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans' most valued freedoms.”
Why did the federalists oppose adding a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution?
Dangerous and Unnecessary
The authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all.
What would happen if we didn't have the Human Rights Act?
Tearing up the Human Rights Act would have “dire consequences” including removing obligations to properly address violence against women and girls and destabilising peace in Northern Ireland, more than 50 organisations have warned.