Is the Bill of Rights a good or bad thing?

Answer 1

Circa 1787 one of the arguments against a Bill of Rights was that it generally wasn't a good idea to enumerate rights on paper. The danger was that we would limit ourselves to those rights that were enumerated. It was better to use legal precedent or pass laws to protect individual rights.

James Madison, it may surprise some people, was one of those opposed to having a bill of rights, mainly for the reason mentioned above. However, during the ratification process the "People," feeling a bit nervous about approving a constitution which gave so much more power to a central government, strongly expressed their desire for a written guarantee of some basic rights. Madison somewhat reluctantly agreed, and oversaw the compiling of the rights to be enumerated. In order to assuage his opposition to enumerating rights in the Constitution, Madison included what would become the Ninth Amendment, which reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's kind of vague. If one has ever had a question over whether or not the US Constitution isn't quite clear, or may not have ALL the answers; that it may just be in fact a LIVING document, the Ninth Amendment may just prove that it is, in fact, one. So, what kind of rights might "the people" retain? Perhaps, the right to a living wage, access to health care, housing, or education?