Question

Which of the following best explains the Federalists' view on including a list of rights in the Constitution?

The Constitution already limited powers of government, so a list was not needed.
The government would not be able to enforce penalties against those violating rights.
A Bill of Rights would threaten the freedom of any people not included in the list.
A Bill of Rights would weaken a government that needed to be strong to function.

Answer 1

@Blade_Lover @jordanloveangel @Joel_the_boss

Answer 2

a. i think

Answer 3

@undeadknight26 am i right?

Answer 4

A Bill of Rights would weaken a government that needed to be strong to function.

Answer 5

last one

Answer 6

and it could be the first to

Answer 7

they both apply

Answer 8

Which of the following correctly describes the Federalists' argument that having three branches of government protected the people?

The branches would be responsible for drafting a list of rights to include in the Constitution.
The branches were unable to create laws that would be enforced at the state level.
The branches would represent the former state governments at the national level.
The branches were equal in power so that no one branch could control the others.

Answer 9

could you guys help me with my question?

Answer 10

The branches were equal in power so that no one branch could control the others.

Answer 11

sure

Answer 12

Sorry I'm not strong in the U.S. Constitution subject.