We, the Federalists…Everywhere you go and everything you see is connected to our political world, whether you enjoy it or not. Our actions and morals are based solely on the foundation of our country, the United States of America, and the full establishment of our rights as citizens. The Constitution has allowed us to connect as our liberties shine through, but a contrasting enemy, the supposed bill of rights, is approaching and may defeat the sole purpose of our government. Many cannot see the true changes this proposed bill of rights will create, and it is not for the better of our nation. It is evident to live in a nation full of justice and responsibility, but it is unnecessary to want the bill of rights since our Constitution is the full liability for who we, the people, are. Government is a beauty, and although it is a very monotonous factor in society’s interests, becoming educated on it can open the eyes of those who do want rights, but fear opposition. Fighting for the Constitution without a bill of rights will not only allow us, the federalists, to collaborate, but it will help the creation of a stronger and empowered society to prosper. Many lack true justification when they’re fighting for something so meaningless, especially to those who dare to make a mockery of the Constitution. The proposed bill of rights ruins the original claims of the liberty of the people and our precious union, so “why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed” (Publius). In other words, Anti-Federalists, why should you make laws and regulations for something that is so impossible in our nation? Your bill of rights will bring the destruction of unbearable claims of power, instead of bringing the States together! Rationalism should be brought to the full scheme of the bill of rights, especially for the realization “that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS” (Publius). The Constitution doesn’t need any more laws from the bill of rights to fully convey what liberties the people are given because they are fully protected by this one article. Adapting to new laws is always difficult, so why should we be given the job to basically reread our Constitution through another source? Now, bringing awareness and acceptance should be given to the proposals of the bill of rights, but it is unnecessary to bring a doctrine with the same purpose of the Constitution. Bringing “the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc” (Brutus) can be clearly brought on through the original article of our liberties, leaving the proposed bill of rights to be a strong repetition. The vision can be clear for how far the people can go until consequences are met through the bill of rights, but it will leave the nation become repressed of their own agenda and American reputation. It is unclear, however, when it’s said that, “…Therefore, the more astonishing, that this grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in in this Constitution” (Brutus). It is imprudent to say such false accusations, especially when our Constitution goes through several matters ranging from the power of the government to the power of the people. The whole basis of our nation relies on the construction of a democracy and the given authorization of the people. Do not take the Constitution for granted, especially if it’s influencing the proposal of this bill of rights. The many declarations said through the Constitution is influencing the power of the people right now, and it will stay like that as history is marked.