https://afnn.us/2026/05/28/federalist-84-on-why-the-founders-did-not-include-a-bill-of-rights/
AI GENERATED
"
Hamilton’s argument in Federalist 84 highlights a fundamental debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Hamilton and the Federalists originally argued that a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary but actively dangerous. His logic rested on the concept of explicit, enumerated powers: since the Constitution did not grant the federal government any authority to regulate the press, restrict speech, or interfere with religion, it had no right to do so in the first place.
Hamilton feared that by explicitly listing certain rights (like freedom of the press), it would imply that the government did have the power to regulate anything left off the list. Essentially, "to list is to exclude."
---
The Anti-Federalist Pushback & The Compromise
As the article notes, the American public and the Anti-Federalists were deeply skeptical of a centralized authority. They feared a distant federal government would inevitably attempt to expand its power. To secure ratification in key states like New York and Virginia, Federalists ultimately had to promise that a Bill of Rights would be added immediately upon the formation of the new government.
James Madison, who initially shared Hamilton's skepticism, took the lead in drafting the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. To solve Hamilton's specific warning—that listing some rights would leave others unprotected—Madison drafted what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
| Amendment | The Safeguard Created |
| The Ninth Amendment | Explicitly states that just because certain rights are listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean the people don't hold other, unlisted rights. |
| The Tenth Amendment | Clarifies that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong entirely to the states or to the people. |
The Modern Interpretations
The article and its comments mirror a constitutional debate that continues today:
The "Strict Limit" View: Echoed by the author and the first commenter, this perspective argues that the Constitution was designed strictly to bind the federal government to limited, enumerated roles. They view modern federal expansion into areas like education, local infrastructure, or healthcare as a departure from original intent.
The "Living Constitution" View: Conversely, legal scholars on the other side of the aisle argue that the broad phrasing of clauses like the "Necessary and Proper" clause or the "General Welfare" clause were intentionally flexible, allowing the republic to adapt and manage national challenges that the Founders could never have anticipated in 1787.
The tension Hamilton raised in Federalist 84—balancing the need for an effective national government with the strict preservation of individual liberty—remains the central axis of American constitutional politics.
