ills ▁of ▁Rights ▁were ▁not ▁repe aled ▁by ▁the ▁new ▁Constitution , ▁the ▁motion ▁was ▁defeated ▁by ▁a ▁un anim ous ▁vote ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁deleg ations . ▁Mad ison , ▁then ▁an ▁oppon ent ▁of ▁a ▁Bill ▁of ▁Rights , ▁later ▁explained ▁the ▁vote ▁by ▁calling ▁the ▁state ▁b ills ▁of ▁rights ▁" par ch ment ▁bar riers " ▁that ▁offered ▁only ▁an ▁ill usion ▁of ▁protection ▁against ▁ty ran ny . ▁Another ▁delegate , ▁James ▁Wilson ▁of ▁Pennsylvania , ▁later ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁act ▁of ▁enumer ating ▁the ▁rights ▁of ▁the ▁people ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁dangerous , ▁because ▁it ▁would ▁imply ▁that ▁rights ▁not ▁explicitly ▁mentioned ▁did ▁not ▁exist ; ▁Hamilton ▁echo ed ▁this ▁point ▁in ▁Federal ist ▁No . ▁ 8 4 . ▁ ▁Because ▁Mason ▁and ▁Ger ry ▁had ▁emer ged ▁as ▁oppon ents ▁of ▁the ▁proposed ▁new ▁Constitution , ▁their ▁motion — int rodu ced ▁five ▁days ▁before ▁the ▁end ▁of ▁the ▁convention — may ▁also ▁have ▁been ▁seen ▁by ▁other ▁deleg ates ▁as ▁a ▁delay ing ▁t actic . ▁The ▁quick ▁re jection ▁of ▁this ▁motion , ▁however , ▁later ▁end anger ed ▁the ▁entire ▁rat ification ▁process . ▁Author ▁David ▁O . ▁Stewart ▁character izes ▁the ▁om ission ▁of ▁a ▁Bill ▁of ▁Rights ▁in ▁the ▁original ▁Constitution ▁as ▁" a ▁political ▁bl under ▁of ▁the ▁first ▁magnitude " ▁while ▁historian ▁Jack ▁N . ▁Rak ove ▁calls ▁it ▁" the ▁one ▁serious ▁mis calcul ation ▁the ▁fram ers ▁made ▁as ▁they ▁looked ▁ahead ▁to ▁the ▁struggle ▁over