Essay: the tenth amendment to the u. s. constitution reads simply, “the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” what was the intention of the framers of the constitution when this amendment was proposed and ratified?

The original Constitution of 1788 contained very few specific restrictions on the ways in which the power of the national government could be exercised against the people. It guaranteed the right to trial by jury in criminal (but not civil) cases, placed limits on prosecutions and punishments for treason, forbade bills of attainder (laws aimed at particular persons) and ex post facto laws (laws that punished conduct that was legal when it happened), limited any restrictions on habeas corpus to certain designated emergencies, and prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. But the Constitution that emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention contained nothing like a comprehensive bill of rights. Most state constitutions of the time had bills of rights, and many citizens—and members of the Constitutional Convention—expected the new national constitution to have one as well. Nonetheless, the state delegations at the Constitutional Convention voted 10-0 against including a bill of rights in the Constitution.

The sense of the Convention delegates was that a bill of rights, in the context of the federal Constitution, was unnecessary and even dangerous. It was considered unnecessary because the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people. There was, for example, no need for a provision protecting freedom of speech against Congress because, as James Wilson put it, “there is given to the general government no power whatsoever concerning it.” Edmund Randolph made the same point regarding freedom of religion, emphasizing that “[n]o part of the Constitution, even if strictly construed, will justify a conclusion that the general government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.” Similar remarks were made during the drafting and ratification process regarding juries in civil cases, general warrants, and cruel and unusual punishment. The consistent line of the Constitution’s defenders was that no bill of rights was necessary because the limited and enumerated powers of the national government simply did not include the power to violate those rights.

They even maintained that inclusion of a bill of rights would be dangerous, because it might suggest that the national government had powers that it had not actually been granted. As Alexander Hamilton put it, bills of rights “would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do?” Moreover, any list of rights would be incomplete. Such a list might indirectly endanger any rights not included on it.

In sum, the Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people.

Not everyone was convinced by these arguments. Indeed, the absence of a bill of rights threatened to derail ratification of the Constitution, especially in key states such as Massachusetts and Virginia. A number of states ratified the Constitution only on the express understanding that the document would quickly be amended to include a bill of rights. The first Congress accordingly proposed twelve Amendments, the last ten of which were ratified in 1791 and now stand as the Bill of Rights.

The first eight of those ratified Amendments identify various rights of the people involving such things as speech, religion, arms, searches and seizures, jury trials, and due process of law. The last two address the concerns of the Constitution’s defenders that these enumerations of rights were pointless and even dangerous.

The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.

Explanation:

hop it helps

please mark brainliest

the correct answer is =   british soldiers attacked and killed five boston townspeople.

pacal the great: the throne was passed on to pacal through a female; as a result, he believed that he must legitimize his claim to the throne to add stability to his reign.

as a result, the daughter of ac kan's brother ruled until her son, pacal, reached an age old enough to assume the throne.

pacal the great became the king of the mayan city of palenque in a different way than most mayan kings.

pacal pointed out that ac kan had succeeded his mother as ruler, thereby establishing a precedent for the rule to pass through a female.  

he tried to justify that the way he gained the throne by connecting his mother with the divine mother and the mythological events that happened during the creation of the world.  

typically, the son of a male mayan ruler inherited the throne, but in 612 ce, king ac kan died and did not leave behind a male heir.

montezuma 1: even so, these wars of conquest failed to provide enough human sacrifices and because of this, he formed a triple alliance with cities in the valley of puebla-tlascala.  

in addition, montezuma realized that his government failed to the aztecs during the famine.

in order to appease him, montezuma increased the number of human sacrifices.

the aztec performed human sacrifices to their god huitzilopotchli because they believed he desired human blood.  

around 1440 ce, montezuma i became the fifth emperor of the aztecs and went on to rule for 28 years.  

soon after he assumed the throne, the aztecs were hit with a series of disasters, namely a plague of locusts, a flood, and a harsh frost  

huayna capac: huayna capac also fought to gain territories north of his empire in what is now ecuador.  

huayna capac significantly extended the inca empire to the south, into what is now argentina and chile.  

in 1493 ce, huayna capac became the eleventh ruler of the inca empire.  

huayna, therefore, wanted to gain his own lands and launched campaigns against tribes to the east and north of the empire.  

the inca empire reached its peak under the rule of huayna capac.

during this time the empire covered a vast territory including parts of present day colombia, peru, argentina, chile, bolivia, and ecuador.

during his reign, huayna heard about bearded men with pale skin that resembled the incan1 god viracocha and took this news as a bad omen.

huayna took this as another bad omen that predicted the destruction of the empire.