Answer:
1. The Federalist believed that there is no need for inclusion of Bill of Rights. This is based on the perception that Constitution restricted the government not the individuals or citizens.
2. The Anti- Federalists argued that the Constitution bestowed the central government enormous power, which, in the absence of Bill of Rights, can be exploited at the detriment of the people
Explanation:
1. The Federalists believed that there is no need for inclusion of the Bill of Rights. This is based on the perception that the Constitution restricted the government, not the individuals or citizens. - The Federalists which was spearheaded by the likes of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, wrote various documents termed as "Federalist papers" (sometimes referred to as Publius) where they argued their case against the Bill of Rights. Their conclusion was that the Bill of Rights would only impede the rights of the people rather than safeguard them.
2. The Anti- Federalists argued that the Constitution bestowed the central government enormous power, which, in the absence of the Bill of Rights, can be exploited at the detriment of the people - These group of people argued their case in various papers termed as Brutus, Centinel etc. One of the major personality in this camp is Patrick Henry.
Their submissions amongst others, were that the new constitution can turn the central government to be a threat to their individual liberties.
They fought for home and had a home-field advantage. They also had knowledge of the area. They had the french on their side.
Answer:
The 1935 Constitution Republic of The Philippines, (The National Territory) article I
Absolute Monarchies, which was your typical medieval government, run on the idea that one man has absolute power, thus the name.
