Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution, so I'm fairly certain that the rest of that statement goes: According to the Anti-Federalists, a governing document such as the Constitution should most certainly fail to protect the rights of individuals and the states.
That's the most I've got with how much you gave, I'll probably need specific choices to choose from for a more satisfying and accurate answer.
According to the Anti-Federalists, a governing document such as the Constitution should most certainly <u>protect the states’ and individual rights. </u>
Explanation:
The Anti-Federalists were a political coalition that, during the debates for the ratification of the Constitution (1787), strongly opposed the creation of a central government and the ratification of a governing document like the Constitution that did not contain a Bill of Rights that placed limits on the government power and protected the state's and individual rights, such as the people's right to freely express, practice the religion they wanted, have an impartial jury and due process and the states' rights to have reserved powers.
Therefore, only when the Founding Fathers determined to agree on adding a Bill of Right to the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists ratified the proposed Constitution.
I disagree, honestly. I have looked up A.mitchell palmers and he was an aterney general. Radical evolution is a book based on humans with non-human abilities. It looks interesting but the man has nothing to do with Radical Evolution.
