<P> We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion--that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed--that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc . If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms . The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted . With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution . </P> <P> He continued with this observation: </P> <P> Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought . So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage . </P> <P> Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, opposed a bill of rights for much of the ratification period, in part due to the procedural uncertainties it would create . Madison argued against such an inclusion, suggesting that state governments were sufficient guarantors of personal liberty, in No. 46 of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays promoting the Federalist position . Hamilton opposed a bill of rights in The Federalist No. 84, stating that "the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights ." He stated that ratification did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, making protections unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations ." Patrick Henry criticized the Federalist point of view, writing that the legislature must be firmly informed "of the extent of the rights retained by the people...being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication ." Other anti-Federalists pointed out that earlier political documents, in particular the Magna Carta, had protected specific rights . In response, Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different: </P>

Which of these is not a part of the bill of rights