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
mrs_skeptik [129]
3 years ago
5

Why is the Bill of Rights still controversial today?

Law
2 answers:
pantera1 [17]3 years ago
8 0
Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened.

Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights.

Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights.

Hope this helps
aleksley [76]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Because liberals want the government to be in charge and for us to be a communist s hole

You might be interested in
What you believe the people of Texas should do on gun control and gun violence issue
Fynjy0 [20]

Answer:

Nah

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
6.) What is the current legal status of habitual-offender laws, such as three-strikes laws?
FromTheMoon [43]

Answer:

The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence.

Explanation:

pls mark as brain list

7 0
2 years ago
Please answer #18. thank you!!
MA_775_DIABLO [31]

Answer:

*gasp* your cheating in school!!!

i guess A

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
When it comes to statutory analysis, the very first thing to look at is the
kvv77 [185]

Good morning!

Step 1: Determine whether the statute applies in any way to the legal problem or issue.

Step 2: Carefully read the statute and identify the required elements.

Step 3: Compare or match the required elements to the facts of the problem and determine how the statute applies.

Here's a quizlet which may help:

https://quizlet.com/121955000/legal-analysis-and-writing-ch-3-statutory-analysis-flash-cards/

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
elabora en papel pergamino virtual una propuesta de 10 mandamientos donde aparezcan 10 conductas dañinas propias del acoso escol
Svetlanka [38]

Answer:

No hablo español

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What does the constitution say
    5·1 answer
  • True or False: All government exists to control the legitimate exercise of power.
    6·1 answer
  • Why so many people say that trump is starting a purge outta no where ?is this statement true or false? EXPLAIN!!
    12·1 answer
  • 29 PTS...Kant or Rawls?
    13·2 answers
  • Which of the following best describes "sleep-driving"?
    11·1 answer
  • What are some different types of witnesses?
    15·2 answers
  • Ano po answer plssss
    12·1 answer
  • What is one impact of the baby boom generation on American society?
    12·1 answer
  • The "stand your ground" doctrine originated in which state?
    12·2 answers
  • How did this supreme court decision affect judicial interpretations of the constitution?.
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!