ground of objection, that ingenuity might pervert, or usurpation overleap, the true sense. That objection will equally lie against all powers, whether large or limited, whether national or state, whether in a bill of rights, or in a frame of government. But a conclusive answer is, that such an attempt may be interdicted, (as it has been,) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights, that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]
§ 1862. The want of a bill of rights, then, is not either an unfounded or illusory objection. The real question is not, whether every sort of right or privilege or claim ought to be affirmed in a constitution; but whether such, as in their own nature are of vital importance, and peculiarly susceptible of abuse, ought not to receive this solemn sanction. Doubtless, the want of a formal bill of rights in the constitution was a matter of very exaggerated declamation, and party zeal, for the mere purpose of defeating the constitution.[2] But so far as the objection was well founded in fact, it was right to remove it by subsequent amendments; and congress have (as we shall see) accordingly performed the duty with most prompt and laudable diligence.[3]
- ↑ Constitution, 9th Amendment; 1 Lloyd's Deb. 433.
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 84. See also 2 Elliot's Deb. 65, 160, 243, 330, 331, 334, 344, 345, 346; 1 Jefferson's Corresp. 64; 2 Jefferson's Corresp. 274, 291, 344, 443, 459; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 308; 2 Amer. Museum, 334, 378, 421, 540; 3 Amer. Museum, 548, 559; 1 Lloyd's Deb. 423 to 437; 5 Marshall's Life of Washington, ch. 3, p. 207 to 210.
- ↑ See 5 Marshall's Lite of Washington, ch. 3, p. 207 to 210.—Congress, in the preamble to these amendments, use the following language: "The conventions of a number of the states having at the time of adopting the constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent mis-
vol. iii.91
