[Sudetenland]

Henry was a hero and a patriot, but he was wrong. I'll go with Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest.

Only a Utopian would put for the absurd assertion that man is noble and trustworthy. Man is inherenly corrupt and it is proven in the failure of the communist paradigm. Communism depends on the inherent incorruptiblity of man. It presumes that men of "good conscience" will work for their mutual benefit. History has repeatedly proven this to be naive in the extreme.

Our Founding Fathers knew this which is why Jefferson stated, when speaking of our unalienable rights, that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" Governments, not men. The statement to which you object is exactly correct. It is the reason that Hamilton opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. In Federalist 84 he talks about it:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 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? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

We witness the actions of these "men disposed to usurp" every day in our current government.

If men were as noble as you and Patrick Henry suggest, then we would have no need for any laws. People could be trusted to behave of their own free will.

[Huck]

You've got Henry's ideas completely backwards. The basic premise of Henry's remarks is that the Constitution, far from safeguarding the people from usurpers, created new multitudes of usurpers. That the Constitution, far from containing checks and balances, created a consolidated system that would overwhelm the states and the people and lead to a loss of liberty.

Obviously, Henry was correct.