The balance of power being considered then was between the state and the people. Fear over a standing army was real.

Crime exited when the constitution was written, suggesting the framers were only concerned with interactions at the state level is to insult their intelligence. Not to mention specific text like people’s rights to a jury trial etc.

▲

9x39 24 days ago | parent [-]

Principally concerned between the state and the people, not only. The context was the nature of England at the time. It was viewed as an oppressive force.

The right to a jury trial is another example of favoring the individual instead of say, the Star Chamber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

I don’t think we even disagree per se, but it’s hard to argue the constitution wasn’t written primarily with the thought of what England and how it exercised authority in mind. Individual roadmen and ruffians, let’s say, existed but weren’t existential threats to shape the tone of the new nation’s foundation, were they?

	▲	Retric 24 days ago \| parent [-]
		Lawlessness is a complete breakdown of state power and just as threatening to a new country as foreign powers. The degree of importance they place on individual factors here is obviously debatable, but they just had two governments fail. England and the articles of confederation didn’t work so there was a larger emphasis on practicality over idealism.