Answer:
Explanation:
The federalists raised a number of objections to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Here are the most important ones:
- The complexity of the government structure and the large number of different population groups in the country are in themselves a defense of the rights of citizens. In such a republic, it is simply impossible for the majority to occupy a dominant position in society.
- The Constitution protects a certain amount of individual rights. These are habeas corpus, the prohibition of retroactive application of the law, conviction without a court, defense of contractual obligations, the right to a court at the scene of a crime, protection against charges of treason not specified in laws.
- The Bill of Rights is redundant in a state where people have sovereignty. The first English Bill of Rights protected the people from the all-powerful monarch. The constitution gives the people the right to remove elected representatives of government from their posts. In such circumstances, the Bill of Rights is no longer needed.
- The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to violate the rights of a citizen. The authorities have only limited, clearly defined powers. Therefore, there is no need to list the rights that the government has no right to violate.
- Declarations of rights are ineffective and dangerous. Most state constitutions have a Bill of Rights, but this does not stop state authorities from violating the rights of residents because it does not have a clear list of all protected rights of a citizen. As a result, state authorities consider it possible to violate individual rights not enshrined in their Bill. Since it is not possible to list all rights, it is better not to have any list. Government officials may consider it permissible to violate rights not entered into the Bill.
