English Bill Of Rights Ought To Be Free Essay

The Anti-Federalist, Brutus, argues “...their Magna Carta and bill of rights have long been the boast as well as the security of that nation.” However, in the words of Hamilton, a bill of rights is unnecessary because the English Bill of Rights protects them from an uncontrollable monarch. I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, does the United States have a monarch? No, our Constitution calls for a president who serves the people, and if by chance, this man or woman is unfit to govern our nation, we the people, have the right to impeach them. We are not bound by law to remain under the rule of a corrupt leader! To explore the English Bill of Rights, let’s examine the following point: “8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free” With minimal knowledge of the English legislation, we know members of parliament are elected into the Upper House based on their nobility. This, my friends, is not “free”; evidently, the English Bill of Rights is not strong, nor abided to by their monarch, so it is ultimately unnecessary. Our constitution is designed so that our elections are free; thus, a Bill of Rights would be repetitive. …show more content…
It states that, “...New York has no Bill of Rights prefixed to it.” Clearly, the state is functioning efficiently without a Bill of Rights; thus, a Bill of Rights does not dictate success or infringe upon the people’s rights. If it did, we would see significantly more rebellions in New York than any other state. However, many rebellions occur in states with pre-existing Bill of Rights; thus, a Bill of Rights does not automatically prevent any internal