if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    why did anti-federalists favor a bill of rights? it would split power equally between the president and congress. it would put goverment in the hands of individual states. it would give the government more power to make laws. it would protect individual citizens’ freedoms.

    James

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get why did anti-federalists favor a bill of rights? it would split power equally between the president and congress. it would put goverment in the hands of individual states. it would give the government more power to make laws. it would protect individual citizens’ freedoms. from EN Bilgi.

    The Debate Over a Bill of Rights – Center for the Study of the American Constitution – UW–Madison

    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…

    The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

    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.

    (F) Federalist Essays/Speeches

    (AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches

    Dangerous to List Rights

    (F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788

    (F) Edmund Pendleton to Richard Henry Lee, Richmond, 14 June 1788

    Enumerated Powers Protects Rights

    (F) James Wilson Speech in the State House Yard, Philadelphia, 6 October 1787

    (F) Anti-Cincinnatus, Northampton Mass., Hampshire Gazette, 19 December 1787

    (F) Aristides: Remarks on the Proposed Plan, 31 January 1788

    (F) George Nicholas Speech in the Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788

    (AF) An Old Whig III, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 20 October 1787

    (AF) Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 1 November 1787

    (AF) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787

    (AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 12 June 1788

    Essential in an Original Contract

    (AF) An Old Whig IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 27 October 1787

    (AF) John De Witt II, Boston American Herald, 29 October 1787

    (AF) Brutus II, New York Journal, 1 November 1787

    (AF) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787

    (AF) Agrippa XV, Massachusetts Gazette, 29 January 1788

    (AF) A Citizen of the State of Maryland, Remarks Relative to a Bill of Rights, 12 April 1788

    General Arguments

    (F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 22 November 1787

    (F) Valerius, Massachusetts Centinel, 28 November 1787

    (AF) A Federal Republican, A Review of the Constitution, 28 November 1787

    (AF) Portius, Boston American Herald, 12 November 1787

    Good Government Protects Rights

    (F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788

    (F) Fabius IV, Pennsylvania Mercury, 19 April 1788

    (F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788

    Ineffective to List Rights

    (F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 23 November 1787

    (F) Gazette of the State of Georgia, 20 March 1788

    Jury Trials Need Protection

    (AF) Cincinnatus II: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 8 November 1787

    (AF) The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, Pennsylvania Packet, 18 December 1787

    Limits Government

    (F) Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788

    (AF) Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, 16 October 1787

    (AF)  Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788

    Limiting Powers More Important than Bill of Rights

    Source : csac.history.wisc.edu

    Anti

    The opposition of the Anti-Federalists to the 1787 U.S. Constitution without a bill of rights was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment.

    THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA

    THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA PRESENTED BY THE JOHN SEIGENTHALER CHAIR OF EXCELLENCE IN FIRST AMENDMENT STUDIES

    Home >> Encyclopedia >> Articles

    Anti-Federalists

    By Mitzi Ramos

    Other articles in Groups and Organizations

    The anti-Federalists and their opposition to ratifying the Constitution were a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Amercians' civil liberties. The anti-Federalists were chiefly concerned with too much power invested in the national government at the expense of states. (Howard Chandler Christy's interpretation of the signing of the Constitution, painted in 1940.)

    The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.

    Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution, drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, needed to be ratified by nine or more state conventions (and by all states that wanted to take part in the new government). A clash erupted over ratification, with the Anti-Federalists opposing the creation of a strong national government and rejecting ratification and the Federalists advocating a strong union and adoption of the Constitution.

    Patrick Henry was an outspoken anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain, portrait by George Bagby Matthews and Thomas Sully)

    Anti-Federalists were concerned about excessive power of national government

    The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French.

    To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution.

    The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius.

    Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer).

    By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:

    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;

    fears that Congress might seize too many powers under the necessary and proper clause;

    concerns that republican government could not work in a land the size of the United States;

    and their most successful argument against the adoption of the Constitution — the lack of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties.

    George Clinton was most likely a writer of The Anti-Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Cato. These papers were a series of articles published to combat the Federalist campaign. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain, portrait by Ezra Ames)

    Anti-Federalists pressured for adoption of Bill of Rights

    The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain.

    Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties. Upon ratification, James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789. The states ratified ten of these, which took effect in 1791 and are known today collectively as the Bill of Rights.

    Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not filter into the presidency of George Washington.

    Source : www.mtsu.edu

    gov't unit 1 test review Flashcards

    Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards terms like The powers of the commander in chief of the armed forces belong to the -judicial branch. -legislative branch. -executive branch. -state governments., Which of these is a procedural right protected by the Bill of Rights? -the right to bear arms -freedom to petition -the right to call witnesses -freedom of assembly, During the Constitutional Convention, small states did not want their representation based on -delegation. -location. -condition. -population. and more.

    gov't unit 1 test review

    The powers of the commander in chief of the armed forces belong to the

    -judicial branch.

    -legislative branch.

    -executive branch. -state governments.

    Click card to see definition 👆

    executive branch

    Click again to see term 👆

    Which of these is a procedural right protected by the Bill of Rights?

    -the right to bear arms

    -freedom to petition

    -the right to call witnesses

    -freedom of assembly

    Click card to see definition 👆

    right to call witness(es)

    Click again to see term 👆

    1/71 Created by Savannah_Bunch

    Terms in this set (71)

    The powers of the commander in chief of the armed forces belong to the

    -judicial branch.

    -legislative branch.

    -executive branch. -state governments. executive branch

    Which of these is a procedural right protected by the Bill of Rights?

    -the right to bear arms

    -freedom to petition

    -the right to call witnesses

    -freedom of assembly

    right to call witness(es)

    During the Constitutional Convention, small states did not want their representation based on

    -delegation. -location. -condition. -population. population

    Why did Federalists argue for a separation of powers?

    -No single branch of government would have too much power.

    -The president should have more power than the other branches.

    -Power would be divided equally between federal and state government.

    -Trying to balance three branches of government would be impossible.

    no single branch of government would have too much power

    Read this excerpt from the Constitution.

    The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent . . . abuse of its powers, that further . . . restrictive clauses should be added.

    According to this excerpt, what was the main purpose of ratifying the Bill of Rights?

    -to adopt the Constitution

    -to restrict citizens' rights

    -to prevent the abuse of power

    -to create a convention

    the prevent the abuse of power

    Which statement about the Three-Fifths Compromise is accurate?

    -The Three-Fifths Compromise determined where the greatest enslaved populations were based on census data.

    -The Three-Fifths Compromise helped give more power to states that did not allow slavery.

    -The Three-Fifths Compromise was developed based on the results of the 1790 census.

    -The Three-Fifths Compromise was a temporary solution to a long-term political issue.

    The Three-Fifths Compromise determined where the greatest enslaved populations were based on census data

    Which individual freedom is protected under the Constitution?

    -the freedom to tell lies that damage another person's reputation

    -the freedom to assemble together for peaceful meetings

    -the freedom from having property taken lawfully

    -the freedom from being arrested lawfully

    the freedom to assemble together for peaceful meetings

    What was the Federalists' position on creating a bill of rights?

    -They approved of the idea because it would help limit government powers.

    -They disapproved of the idea because it meant the president would have too little power.

    -They agreed to the idea if they could review and reject parts of it.

    -They thought it was unnecessary because the Constitution would already limit government powers.

    They thought it was unnecessary because the Constitution would already limit government powers

    An important part of Article VI in the Constitution is the

    -Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    -Supremacy Clause.

    -Privileges and Immunities Clause.

    -Enslaved Persons Clause.

    Supremacy Clause

    How did Anti-Federalists feel about a strong central government?

    -They favored it.

    -They mostly favored it but had some concerns.

    -Some opposed it and some favored it.

    -They opposed it. They opposed it

    How does the Tenth Amendment differ from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights?

    -The Tenth Amendment reserves the rights of the states.

    -The Tenth Amendment makes the Constitution applicable to state law.

    -The Tenth Amendment involves unenumerated rights.

    -The Tenth Amendment establishes the role of state governments.

    The Tenth Amendment reserves the rights of the states.

    What agreement did the delegates reach regarding enslaved people and representation with the Three-Fifths Compromise?

    -They were not to be counted in the census at all.

    -They were counted in the census as full equals.

    -They were partially counted in the census.

    -They were counted in the census in certain states.

    They were partially counted in the census.

    Which key idea in the Constitution creates a division of power between national and state governments?

    -habeas corpus -individual rights -federalism -republicanism federalism

    What was the purpose of the New Jersey Plan?

    -to support the interests of the smaller states

    -to implement a bicameral legislature

    -to nominate William Paterson as chief executive

    -to ensure representation was based on population

    to support the interests of the smaller states

    Source : quizlet.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 7 month ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer