Who argued that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary under the new Constitution?

The argument that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary under the new Constitution was primarily made by Federalists. They believed that the Constitution, as it was originally written, contained numerous safeguards against tyranny and adequately protected individual rights. The Federalists argued that because the powers of the federal government were limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, there was no need for a separate Bill of Rights to protect rights that were not in danger of governmental infringement. They maintained that a Bill of Rights could even be dangerous, as it might imply that any rights not listed were not protected. This perspective was influential in the debates over ratification of the Constitution and shaped the discussions surrounding the eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments.