The violation of basic rights during British rule led many Americans to fear the powers of the central government. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights protected freedom of expression that was crucial during the Revolution. Through newspapers, pamphlets, and boycotts, America joined together in rebellion against a tyrannical government. British injustices like the Boston Massacre and the increase of troops stationed in the colonies spurred the desire for a free country in which its citizens have the right to protest and disagree with each other and the government. Furthermore, it is clear that the third and fourth amendments were direct responses to the British Quartering Act and Writes of Assistance. The invasion of private property through forcible quartering and inspections without search warrants outraged Americans. The third and fourth amendments protected the importance of privacy and defined what Americans had begun to think of as their inherent rights. In the wake of a disagreeable subservience to Britain, America wanted to promise its citizens a country where their rights of free expression would not be infringed upon. Not only were personal rights feared to be at stake after the Revolution, but state’s rights were as well. The intentionally weak Articles of Confederation showed a common sentiment of that time: fear of the central government threatening the sovereignty of the states. Thus, the popular Antifederalist argument against the Constitution favored the independence of the states. George Mason, the Antifederalist Virginian delegate who proposed the Bill of Rights, pointed out how the government could abuse the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Mason feared a government that could potentially justify immoral and tyrannical actions, and claimed for this reason a …show more content…
The Constitution itself already stated what the government could and could not do, and as Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Straub). Like the Antifederalists, the Federalists also began to take an opposite perspective on strict versus loose construction of the Constitution. Hamilton took a strict constructionist stance and argued that any power not specifically granted in the Constitution is already forbade, thus making the Bill of Rights completely nonessential. Also, Federalists pointed out that state governments already had sufficient bills of rights that would cover the protection of the people. States already were granted the power to decide on laws regarding their citizens, and it seemed logical to then grant them the power to decide rights, too. If the Constitution and individual state bills of rights already protected basic rights of the people, the Bill of Rights seemed to have a further purpose than solely guarding basic