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

Question

GPT-4o mini · Answer

The most accurate 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 were concerned that a bill of rights could imply that any unenumerated rights were not protected, thus potentially limiting rights, whereas Anti-Federalists believed that a formal declaration of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberties against potential government overreach.