This is why we need to ban guns!

[Thondalar]

You're now attempting to narrow your own argument because you don't like to be cornered on just how narrow your historical interpretations are.

I'm not narrowing anything. I made a statement, and backed it up with the man's own words. You and Latrin are arguing my "interpretation", but have offered nothing to defend your positions.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not narrowing anything. I made a statement, and backed it up with the man's own words. You and Latrin are arguing my "interpretation", but have offered nothing to defend your positions.

Except he already did twice.

[Latrinsorm]

I just posted two long paragraphs, penned in his own hand, that very clearly state his fears of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. There's nothing at all to interpret. I'm really not sure why you're still trying to argue this. Re-read the quote you yourself posted...

I have given a quote of Hamilton arguing for implied powers in the Constitution, where he uses the exact phrase "implied as well as express powers".

With that context in mind, the other quote cannot be taken to mean that there are no implied powers in the Constitution.

If you can disagree with either of those points, have at it.

[Johnny Five]

Is Warriorbird and Latrin the same person?

[Latrinsorm]

You could say I'm a simulacra for him.

...wait a minute!!! Johnny Five is Cly-... Johnny Five is Latrinsorm!!!

[Johnny Five]

I'm neither of you, I am alive.

[Warriorbird]

Is Warriorbird and Latrin the same person?

If only. I'm sure I'd have better hair.

[Thondalar]

Except he already did twice.

Except that he's arguing for something I'm not arguing against.

My assessment was that it was Hamilton's belief that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was "dangerous" because it would "afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted".

"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?"

This has nothing to do with Implied Powers, unless you're suggesting that the Constitution somewhere implies the government has the power to control it's citizens.

You guys really are barking up the wrong tree here. The Federalists were for the Constitution as-is, with no Bill of Rights...I picked out Hamilton because he provided what I feel is the most eloquent argument against a Bill of Rights, but he was not at all alone in this. The Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. There are no interpretations or assumptions in this, it's simply what happened.

[Latrinsorm]

Except that he's arguing for something I'm not arguing against.

My assessment was that it was Hamilton's belief that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was "dangerous" because it would "afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted".

"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?"

This has nothing to do with Implied Powers, unless you're suggesting that the Constitution somewhere implies the government has the power to control it's citizens.

You guys really are barking up the wrong tree here. The Federalists were for the Constitution as-is, with no Bill of Rights...I picked out Hamilton because he provided what I feel is the most eloquent argument against a Bill of Rights, but he was not at all alone in this. The Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. There are no interpretations or assumptions in this, it's simply what happened.

Buddy, you're the one who brought up expressed powers. (Unless you count sir Gawayne, and if he was so great how come Lancelot was better?) Like I said, if you had merely claimed that Hamilton was a Federalist there could be no argument... but you weren't satisfied with that, and in your overreach you have created grounds for one.

[Thondalar]

Buddy, you're the one who brought up expressed powers. (Unless you count sir Gawayne, and if he was so great how come Lancelot was better?) Like I said, if you had merely claimed that Hamilton was a Federalist there could be no argument... but you weren't satisfied with that, and in your overreach you have created grounds for one.

I said Hamilton was against a Bill of Rights because he didn't see a need for a Bill of Rights, because the Constitution already covered everything that needed to be covered, and by enumerating individual rights we give the government opportunity to eventually undermine them. This is exactly what he said, and is the only thing i've ever said.