(APEX)Awnser: t is one object of a Bill of Rights to declare and specify the political privallages of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security which are not to be found in any of the state constitutions.
it had features that prevented the abuses of government powers
She wants to refer to the words of the Constitution to give her own argument persuasive power.
The country needs a strong central government
Federalists wanted to urge the Constitution to be in action, but the Anti-Federalists didn't want the Constitution to be in commencement. They were against it.
The Federalists played an important role in the ratification of the Constitution, because they were the ones that wrote it. Three of them, who were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, wrote a series of essays arguing why the Constitution should be ratified, by explaining the reason the Constitution was needed so badly, and the reason why it did not take away their liberty (one prevalent argument of those against the ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-federalists). These essays were published in newspapers, and everyone was thinking about the issue from reading them. These essays were put together into a collection called the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are the reason why the Constitution was ratified, other than their compromise to include a Bill of Rights as demanded by the Anti-Federalists.
Travon looks like a burned tortiah on stailroids
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
That the Constitution had no bill of rights.
Federalists wanted to urge the Constitution to be in action, but the Anti-Federalists didn't want the Constitution to be in commencement. They were against it.
· The Federalist position on the adoption of the Constitution was the argument of the difficulties facing the Republic which could be overcome only by the new government based on the proposed Constitution.
The major argument put worth by the anti-federalists for not ratifying the U. S. Constitution was that it gave the national government too much power. Patrick Henry is an example of someone who was a prominent anti-federalist.
The Federalist written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton
it had features that prevented the abuses of government powers
it had features that prevented the abuses of government powers
She wants to refer to the words of the Constitution to give her own argument persuasive power.
The Federalists made a comprimise to issue a Bill of Rights into the Constitution to get enough support for the Constitution to be ratified. They agreed that when the first Congress was held, it would draft a Bill of Rights. The argument was a win for the Anti-Federalists. It was an important addition to the Constitution and has been a great importance in the protection of the basic rights of the American people.
the Federalist were all for the constitution and the anti-federalist were against it because they thought it needed a bill of rights to protect individual rights!
The Supreme Court was both the sword and the purse of the federal government
Actually both sides had a good argument. AAt the time I would say that the federalists had the better argument only because they were for the Constitution. But, although they had a good improvment to the Articles of Confederation, many antifederalists made a very good point about a possible tyranny or oppressive rule by giving the central government (the president) power to tax and control the army. The Bill of Rights was also stongly enforced by the antifederalists, which was important to add to the laws. Overall, I think that federalists had the better argument. Benjamin Franklin was a federalist also, and he pointed out that the Constitution was not perfect, but it was about as good as it gets. It is hard to make a central government, and the Constitution was a very good improvment to the Articles of Confederation. It is also a matter of oppinion, so really is your choice of who had the better argument.
5110
The major argument was the absence of a bill of rights in the Constitution
The Federalist argued that the constitution needed to be ratified in order to correct the issues of the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist focused their arguments on the benefits of a national government.
The major argument put worth by the anti-federalists for not ratifying the U. S. Constitution was that it gave the national government too much power. Patrick Henry is an example of someone who was a prominent anti-federalist.
they had an argument because there was no Bill of Rights and also the executive branch held too much power.
Theire main argument was that the Constitution binds the states much like England binded the states. In their eyes, why go back to be bound if they just fought a war to be free?