Question

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

Answer 1

The correct contrast between the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ understandings of a bill of rights 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.**

Federalists were primarily concerned that a bill of rights might imply that any rights not listed were not protected, potentially limiting individual liberties. Conversely, Anti-Federalists championed the need for a bill of rights to explicitly safeguard individual liberties against potential government overreach.