[devnulloverflow]

It's interesting to see how Hamilton's arguments against a bill of rights hinges on the idea that the government doesn't have power unless the Constitution grants power to the government.

> 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?

The US constitution (like others) is indeed formally structured around enumerated powers. But such limitations are have been deeply unfashionable for decades -- and the great and the good have found various end-runs around it (such as the US commerce clause).

The anti-federalists were right not to trust Hamilton.