Suchergebnisse
Suchergebnisse:
Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The constitution, as originally written, is to specifically enumerate and protect the rights of the people.
4. Jan. 2002 · “The Federalist No. 84, [28 May 1788],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 4, January 1787 – May 1788, ed. Harold C. Syrett.
The Federalist Papers : No. 84. From McLEAN's Edition, New York. To the People of the State of New York: IN THE course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, I have taken notice of, and endeavored to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it. There, however, remain a few which either did not fall naturally under any ...
15. Sept. 2021 · This is the second longest essay in The Federalist, a collection of newspaper essays by Publius (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay; Hamilton wrote number 84) published in New York City to support adoption of the Constitution. It summarizes Federalist arguments that the proposed Constitution does not need a bill of rights.
Publius: The Federalist 84 New York, 28 May 1788. This essay, written by Alexander Hamilton, first appeared in Volume II of the book edition of The Federalist. It was reprinted as number 83 in the New York Independent Journal, 16, 26 July, 9 August, and as number 84 in the New York Packet, 29 July, 8, 12 August.
The second to last essay in the Federalist (No. 84) offers a defense of the Constitutional Convention’s unpopular decision to omit a bill of rights, and therefore not to recognize explicitly the freedom of speech or press. The Argument Against the Bill of Rights.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81. 28 May 1788. The most considerable of these remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked, that the constitutions of several of the states are in a similar predicament.
