Do you agree or disagree with Hamilton and Madison's initial logic that the Bill of Rights was essentially unnecessary? Explain.

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 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.

Explanation:

this is true