Which of the following contrasts Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ understandings of what a bill of rights would do in the Constitution?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Neither group thought a bill of rights could do very much good, but the Anti-Federalists still wanted one.
Neither group thought a bill of rights could do very much good, but the Anti-Federalists still wanted one.

Federalists thought a bill of rights would be too much like the Articles of Confederation, while Anti-Federalists did not see any connection between the two types of documents.
Federalists thought a bill of rights would be too much like the Articles of Confederation, while Anti-Federalists did not see any connection between the two types of documents.

Federalists saw a bill of rights as a document that would limit people’s rights, while Anti-Federalists saw such a document as preserving the most important rights.
Federalists saw a bill of rights as a document that would limit people’s rights, while Anti-Federalists saw such a document as preserving the most important rights.

Anti-Federalists believed that only state governments could create a bill of rights, while Federalists thought only the federal government could create one.
Anti-Federalists believed that only state governments could create a bill of rights, while Federalists thought only the federal government could create one.
Skip to navigation

page 25 of 25

Answer 1

The correct contrast between Federalists' and Anti-Federalists' understandings of what a bill of rights would do in the Constitution is:

Federalists saw a bill of rights as a document that would limit people’s rights, while Anti-Federalists saw such a document as preserving the most important rights.

This reflects the Federalists' belief that a bill of rights was unnecessary and could even pose a risk of limiting rights, whereas the Anti-Federalists argued that a bill of rights was essential to protect individual liberties against potential government overreach.