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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Federalists argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution itself did not grant the government the power to infringe upon individual liberties, while Anti-Federalists believed that a bill of rights was essential to protect individuals from potential government overreach.

Answer 2

you sure

Answer 3

Yes, I am sure. The statement accurately reflects the fundamental beliefs of Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding a bill of rights:

• Federalists often argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution established a government of limited powers, meaning the government could not infringe on rights that it was not granted the authority to regulate. They feared that a bill of rights could be misconstrued as a complete list of rights that were protected, potentially limiting rights to just those enumerated.

• Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, strongly believed in the necessity of a bill of rights as a safeguard against government tyranny. They felt that explicit protections for individual liberties were crucial to preserving fundamental rights.

Thus, the contrasting perspectives regarding a bill of rights and its purpose in the Constitution are accurately captured by the statement that Federalists viewed it as potentially limiting rights, while Anti-Federalists saw it as a means of preserving essential rights.