Bill Of Rights Dbq

One of the most persuasive arguments against the bill of rights was that of a shifting burden of proof. At the heart of the concern was that the introduction of such clauses would flip the presumption of the Constitution. As initially written, the Constitution placed the burden of demonstrating federal power to act on Congress and the President. In October 1787 James Wilson argued during the first state ratification debate in Pennsylvania—a discourse that brought him to national prominence as a spokesman for the Federalist cause—that “it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested.” By calling out specific rights, there would be a narrowing of rights to reflect merely those listed. Federal powers would be conceived broadly, with those defending the rights bearing the burden of showing that the written provision had been invaded.
Wilson’s remarks proved prescient. One cannot look at the doctrine that has since …show more content…
There was little question following the state conventions that Congress would have to incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution for the United States to survive. Six of the original thirteen states had recommended changes to the constitution. Five had stated outright that this meant that the document would have to be amended to include a declaration of rights. Even in states that did not include an overt demand for a bill of rights in their final ratification decision, a vigorous debate about whether to grant one marked the public discourse. Of the rights articulated, one of the most important and consistent objections was the failure of the original Constitution to outlaw promiscuous search and