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.
The social and intellectual was a key way in which scientific knoweldge was spread in the Early Modern Period .
What is Scientific Revolution ?
During the early modern era, a succession of discoveries in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (especially human anatomy), and chemistry altered how society saw nature. These advancements are collectively known as the Scientific Revolution. The De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) by Nicolaus Copernicus, published in 1543, is frequently considered as the commencement of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, which began at the close of the Renaissance era.
With the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia in 1687, which established the laws of motion and universal gravity and so completed the synthesis of a new cosmology, the Scientific Renaissance era is said to have concentrated to some extent on rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients. The idea of a scientific revolution first appeared during the Age of Enlightenment, in the writings of Jean Sylvain Bailly, who characterized it as a two-stage process of eradicating the previous and creating the new. The limits of the Scientific Revolution and its timeline continue to be a topic of scholarly discussion.
To learn more about Scientific Revolution checkout the link below :
brainly.com/question/14231443
#SPJ1
Answer:
Hamilton argued that the constitution was not and should not be a document protecting the rights of individuals. Hamilton claims that if the bill of rights is included, the constitution could be misinterpreted as the only rights that individuals posed. Hamilton also suggests that a bill of rights would give the government more power and not less, after all, why forbid the government from undertaking a certain action unless that government has the power to do so? This sentiment is expressed in the following excerpt, were Hamilton lays out some of the dangerous he believes may arise from the inclusion of a bill of rights in the constitution: "They (The Bill of Rights) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?". Hamilton also argues that the entire constitution is itself a bill of rights, and so the addition of a bill of rights is unnecessary, as seen here; "... the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights, in Great-Britain, form its constitution, and conversely, the constitution of each state is its bill of rights. And the proposed constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the union." The author of Brutus II disagrees with Hamilton, believing that the foundation of the United States should protect and guarantee the rights of its citizens. The author believed that enshrining civil rights in the constitution was vital for the success of the nation. Considering historical context, including the outcome of the debate, the argument presented in Brutus II appears stronger, as it garnered more supported and made its way into the constitution, most definitely impacting the course of US history and the lives of US citizens today.
During the Revolutionary War, a common complaint made by the American soldiers was that they were either not being paid or that they were being asked to work past the terms of their contract. Unlike today, the soldiers were commonly signing on for a period of months or years and the Army was not able to pay many of the times.
