1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
harina [27]
3 years ago
6

The anti federalists are credited with persuading the federalists to add a bill of rights to the United States constitution. Thi

s fact could lead to the conclusion that the federalists were against protecting personal rights; however, that is not true. The reason the federalists did not see the need for a bill of rights is because
History
2 answers:
Travka [436]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Federalists considered that bill of rights was unnecessary because they made a clear distinction between US and State constitutions. They argued that the people were allowed to from state constitutions and it gave them broad authority on broad range of topics, the state government could regulate the personal and private matters of the people. While the US constitution retained only those rights that were in interests of the nation, hence Bill of rights was unnecessary an dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the federal government could not endangered the freedom of religion or press as it wasn't granted the authority to do so.

igomit [66]3 years ago
5 0

Answer: D) they believed it was unnecessary since the Constitution limited the federal government, and each state's constitution included a protection of rights.

Explanation: The Federalists believed it was unnecessary since the Constitution limited the federal government, and each state's constitution included a protection of rights. The Federalists believed that separating the powers of government into three branches, adding checks and balances to ensure each branch would remain equal, and also enumerating the powers of government would greatly limit the new government's ability to infringe on an individual's rights.

(its right i just took the quiz trust me)

You might be interested in
Whoever answers correct can have brainliest but answer ASAP!
vesna_86 [32]

Answer: A) True

Explanation: When we say an official has been impeached, that means the official has been accused of crimes or serious misconduct and must stand trial.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why is mining important to the economy of the United States. > It employs many workers > Gold is expensive >Minerals ar
4vir4ik [10]
Gold is expensive (the second answer)
6 0
3 years ago
How did the isolation caused by the geography impact Greece's development as a civilization?
valkas [14]

Answer:

.,

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following statements best explains how the league of nations made decisions
alisha [4.7K]
There's no statement
6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following arguments is an argument of interpretation
makvit [3.9K]
I believe that the answer is A.
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Radical Republicans in Congress wanted to provide more rights for formerly enslaved people, so they
    7·1 answer
  • Explain what rights are guaranteed in the first amendment regarding religion and the press.
    11·1 answer
  • The power to establish a national bank is classified as?
    13·2 answers
  • 100 POINTS
    10·2 answers
  • The first major labor union was founded in 1866 by William Sylvis. What was the name of this union? Knights of Labor American Fe
    9·1 answer
  • People who created hinduism were known as?
    11·1 answer
  • How did the development of Mao Zedong's cult of personality contribute to the Cultural Revolution?
    7·2 answers
  • Is centralised absolutism good or bad?
    7·2 answers
  • Which one of these checks does the Executive branch do?
    14·1 answer
  • How does the flapper represent a change from traditional to modern values
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!