A bill of rights is necessary. It is a point of reference. Unless you list what is or isn't a right for a large group of people the interpretation of what a natural right or what is an inalienable right will differ because it is all relative depending on who the person is. People will assume power if none is given. Unless told what you can or can not do You have nobody telling you otherwise. The point of reference is necessary. According to Brutus 1, people have confidence in their leader when they can be “responsible to them for their conduct”. This responsibility can not be placed onto someone of representation/power/authority without them knowing the basis of what is right and what is wrong and what rights they and the people they rule have.
The people are supposed to have a voice in their government; that is exactly why the colonies declared their separation from Great Britain-to have a voice and a say so. If the people vote in representatives that they believe will fight for the betterment of their community, then there is nothing to worry about. And according to Brutus 1 if the nation were to resolve to an excessive republic(having a strong central government) “ the great officers of government [would] abuse its power”. This is seen through the authority the federal government assumed when taking land from its people when they had no way of paying for the taxes imposed on them after the war (shay’s rebellion).
Although there are representatives for each state, the congress at this time was made up of representatives that were chosen not necessarily voted for. Those people don't represent the majority of the people but rather the minority who think that they are better. Those people will make laws to benefit themselves, while not taking in mind what the majority those such as farmers and those of labor work. And according to Brutus 1 those representatives “are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind”. This pretty much means that representatives are supposed to look out for the good of the people and know what the people want. This clause however allows the interest of the public to be overlooked, making the public's opinion relatively useless.
Standing armies allow for the government to turn on its citizens. A standing army is run and funded by the federal government. This entails that the government has more of an appeal to those who are within standing army because they “have power to ...raise and support armies” (article 1, section 8). And, due to the necessary and proper clause, if the government feels as though their people are out of line, even if they are using their freedoms expressed within the declaration, congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” (necessary and proper clause). If the federal government has the power to both pay its shoulders and make the decisions on when to attack then they have the ability to go after its own citizens.
A confederation allows for citizens to live with more freedom. The state governments are the embodiment of the people. When an upper line of authority invokes itself onto the people, the people often rebell, causing chaos because the people have no say. Example - Shay’s rebellion: the federal government started taking away farmers land that couldn’t afford the poll taxes without having recognition of the citizens inalienable right to pursue their happiness (ownership of their own property). A confederation, on the other hand, does not have a federal government hovering over the state government telling the people no or trying to control them. The people get the final say and can have a voice when it comes to their lives.
