but my high school AP American History professor was passionate on this subject so I remember his lectures well. He was a libertarian who railed against the belief of the anti-Federalists that a Bill of Rights was necessary to prevent a strong central government by stipulating exactly what the government couldn't do. His argument was once you amend the Constitution to state specifically that the Feds can't do this, you have opened the door to endless legal challenges to define what exactly "this" means.

To illustrate from the Talmud, the Commandments state, remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. On six days you may work but the seventh is to be a day of rest.

Long before the time of Christ, the rabbis had debated the question of what is work to this extent:

Swatting a fly on the Sabbath was okay, but if you missed and chased it, that was hunting and therefore work.

Now a Constitutional example - the Second Amendment.

The Constitution said nothing in the enumerated powers about owning firearms. Therefore the Federal government couldn't legislate for or against. That means the states could, if they so desired.

However, once the Second Amendment was written and then ratified, it not only meant the Feds couldn't abrogate the right to bear arms. The Constitution specifically states that it is the supreme law of the land. So now the states couldn't either, as cases taken to the Supreme Court have validated.

The founding fathers wanted a weak central government. Jefferson argued a Bill of Rights was necessary to ensure that. In my opinion, history has proved him wrong.