it did not guarantee basic rights
it did not guarantee basic rights
The major argument was the absence of a bill of rights in the Constitution
The anti federalists werent against the constitution, they were with it.
they didn't get to practice the Bill of Rights
they didn't get to practice the Bill of Rights
I believe one argument he made was that there are no provisions for cessation in the Constitution. One problem with the argument is that according to the Constitution any powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states.
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.
Amendment 1 can be proposed by having the freedom to write, so a man can write what he wants as long as it doesn't disagree with the constitution. Another way is that a man can speak freely as long as he doesn't talk bad against the constitution.
he claimed that the Framers were rich people who wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves
C. Senators would be elected by the state legislatures.
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.
a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already placed limits on the government's power and protected individual rights.