This is why we need to ban guns!

[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.