I never said any such thing. I said that they have more power than you believe. They however, unlike states, are much more limited in their power to restrict the people, thanks to the Constitution and the SCOTUS and the fact that there are much more people to keep them in check.
Madison, and Hamilton both were against a bill of rights, becuase both men stated that because
no power was given under the constitution to the federal government for them to
violate any right of the people, becuase of the limitations placed on the federal government by the constitution.
Madison states below the federal government has
no power over the peoples life's or their property
Madison-- federalist 45-- The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are
few and defined. ....[again
few and defined.]Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite. The former[federal government] will be exercised principally on
external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to
all the objects which,
in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
Hamilton states. in federalist 84, that a bill of rights is not needed because, because why place a restriction on the federal government.......
when they have no power to do., ......becuase he is making the same statement........
the federal government has no authority in the life's/property of the american citizen.
federalist 84--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?
the founders gave no legislative authority to congress ..article 1 section 8.... into the life's/ property of the american citizen, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
for congress to enact legislation on a subject ,it must be a delegated power listed in article 1 section 8....that is the supreme law.