quote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
Artemis writes:
are you anti-Free speech and the 1st amendment as it appears this guy was?
You've completely missed Hamilton's point.
Do you understand the danger Hamilton refers to? Hamilton believed that the Constitution gave Congress enumerated powers that did not include the right to pass laws that came anywhere close to the subject matter described in the First Amendment. The quoted language expresses Hamilton's concern that the First Amendment carve out of a relatively tiny area in which Congress could make no law hinted that Congress had more power than the rest of the Constitution granted.
Today's the First Amendment is a much more powerful thing than it was in Hamilton's day to the apparent dismay of some modern thinkers. Back in Hamilton's time freedom of the press was regularly walked on and the crabbed reading of the Constitution continued for much of our history. The Sedition act of 1798 and the espionage act of 1918 are two spectacular examples.
™ Version 4.2