SNIP See my new signature.
You understand that most of the founding "fathers" were opposed to a Bill of Rights?
For any interested readers, here is the overview:
Even the guy called the Father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was opposed to a bill of rights, calling it an "odious business."
The Founders had to be dragged into a Bill of Rights. Men like Patrick Henry and George Mason raised such a fuss about the lack of a bill of rights in the constitution that it threatened to derail ratification of the constitution itself. Although, Henry himself was opposed to the constitution--period, if I recall, Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights. He correctly foresaw the mischief from a government with the powers granted in the constitution.
Finally, Madison and other Federalists recognized the danger to the ratification of the constitution and relented, Madison reviewing numerous suggested rights from the several states, culling their lists down to twelve articles of amendment, the last ten of which were ratified.
The opposition to the constitution was very serious. The opposition was labeled Anti-federalists. A few wrote essays, not too unlike the Federalist Papers, pointing out mainly that concentrating power in a central government would lead to an overbearing national government. Turns out they were more right than some of the howlingly laughable promises and predictions made in the Federalist papers.
Some of the Anti-Federalist writings are collected in a book titled
The Anti-Federalist Papers. Paperback. Very interesting reading.