How did the Federalists handle the issue of a Bill of Rights which the Anti-Federalists argued for and wanted to call another convention to write?
Asked by: Clarabelle Mosciski | Last update: July 14, 2025Score: 4.7/5 (47 votes)
During the ratification debate, Federalists in many states had to make compromises. Although they were able to prevent the addition of “conditional amendments” prior to ratification, they had to promise to pass a bill of rights after the Constitution had been ratified.
How did federalist and Anti-Federalist view the Bill of Rights?
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.
How did the Federalists deal with the Anti-Federalists concerns?
A Bill of Rights was added in 1791. In part to gain the support of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights if the Anti-Federalists would vote for the Constitution.
How did the Bill of Rights address Anti-Federalist concerns?
Explanation: The Bill of Rights addressed the previous concerns of the Anti-Federalists in several ways, notably by guaranteeing individual liberties and protections against government intrusion. These liberties included freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly, as outlined in the First Amendment.
What issue did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists argue primarily over?
In other words, it was a battle over federalism—the question of how much power to give to the national government and how much power to keep with the states. While the Federalists argued for a stronger national government, the Anti-Federalists defended a vision of America rooted in powerful states.
Why wasn’t the Bill of Rights originally in the US Constitution? - James Coll
What did the disagreements between Federalists and Anti-Federalists center mainly on?
Anti-Federalists argued for the value of limited central government, whereas Federalists maintained that natural rights to life, liberty, and property would be best protected under a strong central government.
What issue did the Federalist and Anti-Federalist primarily argue over brainly?
Final answer:
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists primarily argued about the balance of power between the national government and the states. Federalists supported a strong national government for effective governance, while Anti-Federalists feared it would encroach on individual liberties.
Why did the Federalists oppose a Bill of Rights quizlet?
Federalists say Bill of Rights wasn't needed because they said our new government wouldn't have the power to abuse peoples' rights.
What are the differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
Federalists wanted a strong central (federal) government, while antifederalists wanted states to have greater authority. The debates came to a head during the Constitutional Convention over areas like the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Bill of Rights.
Why did the Federalists oppose adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution which was addressed with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution?
In response to the Anti-Federalists' demand for a bill of rights to be added to the Constitution, some of the Federalists asserted that if such a bill was made, there would be a dangerous implication that those would be the only rights the citizenry would have.
What was the Federalists' position on creating a Bill of Rights?
The Federalists felt a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. They said since the new Constitution limited the power of the government and since the people kept control of everything they did not say the government could do, no bill of individual rights was needed.
Does the Bill of Rights protect everyone?
The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out.
Why did James Madison change his mind about the Bill of Rights?
10, Madison also believed that a large republic would have many contending factions that would prevent a majority from violating the rights of minorities. Nevertheless, he began to change his mind. Madison was deeply concerned about the continuing strength of the Anti-Federalists after ratification.
What did the federalists want?
The Federalist Party saw the Articles of Confederation as weak and indicative of the inevitable instability a nation will face without a strong centralized government. Thus, the party advocated heavily in favor of the Implied Powers of the President within the Constitution alongside Federal Supremacy.
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
With the passage of time, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent; Congress commanded little respect and no support from state governments anxious to maintain their power. Congress could not raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy without the voluntary agreement of the states.
Why did the Bill of Rights not strongly affect citizens' lives until after the 1920s?
The Bill of Rights did not strongly affect most citizens' lives because it only limited the actions of the federal government and did not apply to the states until after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Why did the Federalists not want a bill of rights?
The authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all.
What best summarizes the point of view the excerpt expresses under one?
Answer: Answer Expert Verified The statement that best summarizes the point of view the excerpt expresses is “Under one unified government, people will be robbed of their freedoms.”
What was the main clash between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists?
The Federalists contended that a stronger central government would provide a solid base from which New York could grow and prosper. The anti-Federalists clamored for a bill of rights and fought to preserve the autonomy of the state against federal encroachments.
What were the major differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists and who were the best known members of each party?
The Federalists, led by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government, while the Anti-Federalists, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, advocated states' rights instead of centralized power.
How did the views on a bill of rights of Anti-Federalists differ to those of Federalists in the debate regarding the ratification of the Constitution?
Anti-federalists believed the issue of human rights protection should be observed immediately, while federalists wanted to address the issue after the Constitution was adopted.
What was the difference between Federalists and democratic Republicans?
The Federalists largely represented New England and Mid-Atlantic states, while the Democratic Republicans were dominant in the South. Although senators tended to vote along these party lines, they did not establish formal party organizations in the Senate.
What was the main reason why the anti federalist opposed the Constitution?
The Anti-Federalists feared that the new Constitution gave the national government too much power. And that this new government—led by a new group of distant, out-of-touch political elites—would: Seize all political power. Swallow up the states—the governments that were closest to the people themselves.
What were the main points of disagreement between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists quizlet?
The Federalists supported the Constitution and wanted a stronger national government. The Antifederalists opposed the Constitution because they wanted more power to remain with the states.
What were the arguments against federalist?
- the excessive power of the national government at the expense of the state government;
- the disguised monarchic powers of the president;
- apprehensions about a federal court system and its control over the states;