Going into reading this document, I had thought that I was strongly going to disagree with Hamilton as the Bill of Rights passed for a reason, that reason being that it a) further enforced the Constitution to new levels and heights, b) amplified the Constitution’s and American government’s lawful intentions and c) introduced new concepts that should have been originally included in the Constitution but were missed. Although, after thoroughly reading this document, I find myself agreeing with Hamilton. From his perspective, it is safe to say that he has a little bit of bias in the sense that he is in a position of power and wants to use and maintain that position but doing so constitutionally, rationally, fairly, and for the benefit of the people which he is governing/has the responsibility for, politcally. But, it can be seen throughout history as a pattern that leaders and people in seats of power, however just and constitutional they may be, seem, or claim to be, have the human quality and desire to use that power to his advantage. I am not saying that Alexander Hamilton was unconstitutional and he governed unfairly--just that he did not want to forfeit his power and governmental position and used whatever means necessary in order to do so; in this case, according to the Constitution, that mean was through a process of voting, so his method was very well thought out, as he wrote to the public, the people who would be voting on him and his ideas, to extend his thoughts which would a) keep him in his position and b) represent his ideas. I agree with his claim that the Bill of Rights is in fact repetitive of the Constitution: “Does a bill of rights specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution... Therefore, referring to what is meant by a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the proposed Constitution. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this point.” Basically, that is saying that the Constitution lays out the foundation of the ideas for the government to govern by and can be applied to almost any situation--as it may not lay out the specific orders by which people should act by, it consistently suggests how to go about solving those issues and why to do it in such a manner. In other words, that the Bill of Rights is repeating and suggesting falseness and the lacking of the Constitution--being something that he wrote himself, that would be logical that he would revoke anything else which would cause such degradation (not that drastically, but just a little) to such a powerful and encompassing document. But it makes sense, right? If the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution, that means that there is more lawful text and evidence to turn to and manipulate/make it do something that could hurt (or help) the government that was not intentional in writing such a document(s). More advantage would be given to the people to justify and overthrow/turn against the government and the Constitution, and had the potential to throw Hamilton and the rest of the foundational American government--which was doing very well for/at the time!--out of the power and governing position, which was not a situation they wanted to be put in. So, to me, that is why I agree with Hamilton as viewing it from his perspective (as I see it) proves valid arguments and reason to remain the Constitution as it was, alone, and allow the government to continue developing and empowering itself along with the uprising authoritative nation under the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment