The argument was that if you didn't have a BOR, the government might some day say we had no rights. But if you did have a BOR, the courts might some day say those are the only rights we have. So there was a lot of debate about the need for a BOR.A later commenter came up with the right answer to this question:
IN the end, both sides were proven right. Without a BOR, I have no doubt we would be like the UK and have no rights. But with one, we are stuck with only those rights the courts think the document protects.
I thought we were talking about people who act in good faith. No words, or lack or words, will restrain the type of people you cite.No amount or arrangement of words would prevent those who seek the government's favor and support from acquiring the same.
And a link found courtesy of another commenter:
I haven't actually read a reason.com (or Huffington Post) article in a while, but the reason commenters are quite good.
See another comment:
The problem is that without a God, it is hard to come up with a source for equality and equal rights. Yes, you can make a case for it, but you are left with making a practical case that it is a good thing. But that puts you down on the level of utilitarians.
The argument you want and need to make is "all men are created equal and have equal rights no matter what the good or bad effects". You want that to be a first principle. That way you are not down arguing on a utilitarian level. That way you can tell fascists and progs to go fuck themselves with their dreams of Utopia, because even Utopia cant' justify breaking a first principle.
But without God or a higher authority, why is that a first principle? That is where the argument gets tough because progs and fascists come back and say "but equality is a first principle".