"Rather, the ultimate protector was to be the ruling elite, the gentlemen of leisure who, free of the daily care of laboring in the marketplace," There was no class of leisure in the US.

The author's argument against the Bill of Rights is almost identical to his argument against the Constitution. He appears to be a popular, radical, anarchist libertarian intent on discrediting government in any form or under limitations. But in his criticism of both, he makes some very basic and probably purposeful misinterpretations, connections, and insinuations concerning the intents and purposes of the leaders and guiders of the development and acceptance of both, as well as the impacts on citizens and states.

I won't argue the entire presentation except for his interpretation of the Bill of Rights' intent of 'establishing rights.' Practically, that may well be the way many Supreme Courts have looked at them as ways to get around the intent of the Constitution, but the original intent was not to 'establish' rights, but to further limit the reach of Gov't and an attempt to keep Gov't out of the lives of individuals.

I've often thought that the name 'Bill of Rights' was and is one of the most insidious semantic games ever played on the American people. A better name might have been the 'Bill of Gov't Nevers'. Instead, the argument is often made, based on the name, that citizens are limited to only those rights listed in the 'Bill of Rights' subject to the Gov't needs.

These 'word play games' and their effects on the freedoms of individuals are perfect examples of AR's adamant choices over word usage and original definitions such as 'selfish'.

I do not necessarily agree but will capitulate that we had to start somewhere...after all, just how experience was society, mankind in general, at self rule? Self Rule in a way that does not harm others or the general welfare of society as a whole. Not very as I see it.
I might have opted for more control against government intrusions of a sort we've see since Teddy and Woodie...especially where the populous has been dumbed down, our health has been relegated to idiots only concerned with symptoms and profit and not cures and the perversions of mediums of trade.
There somethings that should never change.

"Rather, the ultimate protector was to be the ruling elite, the gentlemen of leisure who, free of the daily care of laboring in the marketplace, could referee clashing particular interests and thereby effect the general welfare."

Here are the occupations of "the gentlemen of leisure"

"Occupations

The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.

At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.

Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.

A few of the delegates were wealthy. Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin were also extremely well-to-do. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent. Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably.

A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe. Others were self-made men w ho had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...

They don't seem to have been men of leisure.

One man, one attitude.
Two men, two attitudes.
Etc.
The motives may not always been honorable. So, what?
The words explain themselves and compared to the words of any other country at the time was gold among lead. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not perfection, but a start toward the desired state for all rational humans, i:e: Liberty. Unfortunately, the actions of politicians and judges have so twisted and distorted the very meanings of the words of the Constitution, that the only rational thing to do is, rather than trying to correct it, go back to square one and Really, Actually, act according to the Constitution before trying to improve it.

Anyone who has not carefully examined the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the original submissions from the state representatives can't understand the original intent of the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is a false claim that the Constitution is derived from the Bible, but one thing from that epistle did influence the perception of the Constitution: the idea that any durable government had to be based on certain absolute principles.

The only credible serious Constitutionalist Presidential candidate is Rand Paul, despite claims by others to that title. Unfortunately, the public perception has been colored by decades of progressive propaganda about a "living" transmutable Constitution. Like relativistic morality, that view countenances no absolutes.

It is ironic that a nation unique in the history of humanity in being founded on the concept of a government subject to the wishes of the individual citizens is mutating into a collectivist institution. The collectivists/statists need the Bill of Rights, which emphasizes individual liberty, to be suppressed in order to pursue the collective need as a priority.