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

Answer 1

The most accurate contrast between 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 concerned that explicitly listing rights could imply that any unlisted rights were not protected, potentially limiting individual freedoms. In contrast, Anti-Federalists believed a bill of rights was essential to protect individual liberties against potential government overreach.