Which of the following is an accurate discussion of why a bill of rights for the national government might not be necessary?(1 point) Responses A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution. A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution. The national government has only reserved powers. The national government has only reserved powers. A lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state. A lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state. The national government has only delegated powers. The national government has only delegated powers.

Answer 1

The most accurate discussion of why a bill of rights for the national government might not be necessary is:

The national government has only delegated powers.

This argument suggests that since the national government is limited to the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution, any rights not explicitly mentioned would be outside its authority to infringe upon. Therefore, advocates of this view believed that a bill of rights was unnecessary, as the national government could not violate rights that it did not have the power to regulate in the first place.