The Clash of Values
403
public opinion and the spirit of the people, not because of ‘‘fine declarations.’’
Finally, a bill of rights was not needed, Hamilton maintained, because
the Constitution was itself a bill of rights. What protects liberty and gives
it meaning and substance is the structure of government—concrete limitations on power, not parchment declarations. If a constitution—and
that of the United States is such a constitution—is properly designed to
check abuses of power, the government upon which it rests will in the
general course of events discourage political authorities from trampling
on the liberties of the people. The privileges and immunities that might
be proclaimed in such a bill of rights were already embodied in the original document.
In the end, Hamilton’s view did not prevail. The ratification struggle
began as soon as Congress submitted the Constitution to the States, and
the Anti-Federalists steadfastly held their position that a bill of rights
was essential. This issue overshadowed all others, including the issues of
legislative power and representation. Although ratification was secured
within nine months, the margin of victory in at least half of the States was
narrow. Had the Federalists refused to budge on the bill of rights question, it is not unlikely that the pro