<u>Answer:
</u>
Anti-federalists feared that the new Constitution would create a government that could be as tyrannical as the British had been is a TRUE statement.
Explanation:
- In the view of anti-federalists, the system of federalism was in itself a breach of the idea of liberty of the states as they believed that the central government would govern the functioning of the states all the time.
- They proposed that it was necessary to not allow the system of federalism to come into effect because, as they stated, it would destroy the autonomy of the states and make them powerless subjects of the federal government.
Professor charisma's viewpoint best illustrates the "evolutionary" perspective, while professor smith best illustrates the "social-cultural" perspective.
To utilize an evolutionary perspective is to think about all practices, for example, fears, biases, and connections etc. as the consequence of developmental procedures. This point of view takes the position that practices appeared because of adjustments to living conditions. While social-cultural perspective endorse the norms and values approved and appreciated by the society.
3/4s of the States are needed to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
Today, this would mean that 38 states would need to approve an amendment at the state level for the amendment to be added.
A consequentialist approach to ethics is an approach that claims that the morality of an action depends on its outcome. This means that an action is "good" is the consequence it brings is good as well. An example of such a theory is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that an action is morally good if it leads to the most happiness for greatest number of people. However, an objection that can be made to this theory is that utility and happiness are subjective, as well as difficult to measure.
On the other hand, non-consequentialist ethics state that the morality of an action is based on the rightness and wrongness of the actions themselves and not the consequences of those actions. An example of this is the Natural Rights Theory, which states that humans have an inherent right to certain rights, regardless of human behaviour. However, it is unclear who has the right to state what these rights are, which has led to criticism of the theory.
