Do you agree or disagree with Hamilton and Madison’s initial logic that the bill. of rights was essentially unnecessary ?

No, I do not agree with their view.

Hamilton and Madison believed that a bill of rights would limit the rights that would be protected by the constitution, because some rights would be specified while others wouldn't.

I do not agree, and I believe that it is important that the constitution has a bill of rights precisely because it states clearly what rights should be protected, and in which manner.

If new rights are found or accepted by society as a whole in the future, new amendments to the bill of rights can be added.

hr2520 is the patient's act. there is required the secretary of health to summon a committee to develop a national strategic plan of prevention. this committee has forth provisions that make possible for the govern entities to acquire private health insurance services.

is easier to keep this hr2520 as federal, because that way the secretary of health has centralized power to deal with private insurance companies and the federas government has more ways and power to negotiate with them, than doing this process state by state in their specific terms.