Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is saying that whatever rights are mentioned in the constitution are not intended to imply that these are the only rights. It says "construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This implies that there are rights that exist outside the constitution and are retained by the people so any action that the government takes can't remove the rights that already are retained by them.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is saying that whatever rights are mentioned in the constitution are not intended to imply that these are the only rights. It says "construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This implies that there are rights that exist outside the constitution and are retained by the people so any action that the government takes can't remove the rights that already are retained by them.
Just read:
This is saying that whatever rights are mentioned in the constitution are not intended to imply that these are the only rights. It says "construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This implies that there are rights that exist outside the constitution and are retained by the people so any action that the government takes can't remove the rights that already are retained by them.
Just read:
I got the other one. The federalist papers. It did not mention anything about the bill of rights. I would like to get the anti-federalast one day or at least own a copy of it.
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. I add, that New-York is of this number. And yet the opposers of the new system in this state, who profess an unlimited admiration for its constitution, are among the most intemperate partizans of a bill of rights. To justify their zeal in this matter, they alledge two things; one is, that though the constitution of New-York has no bill of rights prefixed to it, yet it contains in the body of it various provisions in favour of particular privileges and rights, which in substance amount to the same thing; the other is, that the constitution adopts in their full extent the common and statute law of Great-Britain, by which many other rights not expressed in it are equally secured.
To the first I answer, that the constitution proposed by the convention contains, as well as the constitution of this state, a number of such provisions....
Antifederalist No. 84
On the Lack of a Bill of Rights
By "Brutus."
When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The Constitution proposed to your acceptance is designed, not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this subject there is almost an entire silence.
If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but in the united consent of those who associate. The mutual wants of men at first dictated the propriety of forming societies: and when they were established, protection and defense pointed out the necessity of instituting government. In a state of nature every individual pursues his own interest; in this pursuit it frequently happened, that the possessions or enjoyments of one were sacrificed to the views and designs of another; thus the weak were a prey to the strong, the simple and unwary were subject to impositions from those who were more crafty and designing. In this state of things, every individual was insecure; common interest, therefore, directed that government should be established, in which the force of the whole community should be collected, and under such directions, as to protect and defend every one who composed it. The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order that what remained should be preserved. How great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not inquire....
