0
The Anti-Federalists. They didn't think it was right to have rules without rights.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the history background of the Bill of Rights?
In the late 1700s, many people felt the proposed Constitution of the United States did not go far enough in protecting the fundamental principles of individual rights, putting ratification of the Constitution in danger. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill Of Rights, were proposed as a means of obtaining the votes necessary to ratify the Constitution.
What were the Founding Fathers' opinions on the Bill of Rights?
The founding fathers were either Federalists or Anti-Federalists. Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton thought that the Bill of Rights was not needed, their new constitution was perfect in their minds and they felt that ratification was not needed. Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson were in favor of the Bill of Rights, the average person would not be able to read the new constitution and Jefferson and others felt that the government would gain to much power with out the Bill of Rights. The famous Federalist believed that a bill of rights were not necessary in that the new constitution gave the federal government no powers to hamper the civil rights of its citizens. Madison, who finally wrote the Bill, was certain that the state constitutions gave its citizens the rights quite properly. Nevertheless, ratification was vital, so the Federalists agreed to 10 amendments.
What arguments did the federalists use against having a bill of rights?
The argument of the federalists is that the constitution gave the nationalists the strong national government that had wanted. Federalists felt that the Constitution provided the necessary protection already and the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Also, the Bill of Rights pointed out rights that the government didnt have, therefore outlining the powers the government didnt have gave the appearance that the government had more powers than it actually did.
What role did the Bill of Rights play in the ratification process?
The Constitution was actually ratified several years before the Bill of Rights. Several states' delegations had reservations about signing the Constitution because they felt it did not do enough to protect individual rights and states rights. The compromise was that the authors of the Constitution agreed that they would work to get important rights added through the amendment process. The result of that agreement was the Bill of Rights, which became law in 1792. APEX: People were afraid of living under another monarchy
Why would the constitution be drafted without a bill of rights?
Well, first off the Constitutionwas drafted with a Bill of Rights. It wasn't until 1791 that they were adopted. Second, the many federalists and some anti-federalists were against The Bill of Rights because they felt it was too specific and people would find loop holes in it.
Why did Americans insist on adding the Bill of Rights in the Constitution?
Two years after the constitution went into effect, ten amendments were added to the document. it was felt that the constitution did not list the rights that should protect all Americans. The constitution assumed that because the powers of the government were specific and limited, a statement of rights was not needed, but as the states began to ratify the constitution in 1787 and 1788, they insisted that a Bill of Right be added.
What did the Anti-federalists feel was needed to protect the liberties of the individuals?
They wanted a bill of rights, guaranteeing personal rights to the citizens (speech, religion, etc.). See Wikipedia search: 'Bill of Rights'.
Why didnt the federalist want the bill of rights?
Many federalists simply didn't see the need for a Bill of Rights. They felt the Constitution did a sufficient job in balancing power between the national government and the states. The Bill of Rights was added to appease the anti-federalists.
Was the first constitution rejected because it included the end to slavery and no one would sign it?
No. It was felt that a Bill of Rights was needed to make sure that the abuses of the king wouldn't happen again.
What did many members of the convention feel missing from the constitution?
The members of the convention felt that there was a protection from the usurpation of powers from the three governmental branches missing in the Constitution. They thought that by having no checks & balances in the Constitution, there would be abuses of certain amendments.
What were the controversies over the ratification of the constitution?
The people at the time felt that the Constitution did not fully protect the rights of the people. People were afraid that the national Government would violate their rights, and only passed the Constitution on the condition that a Bill of Rights be added right after.
Why would many people who opposed the constitution argue for a bill of rights?
People that opposed the US Constitution argued in favor of the Bill of Rights. They felt the constitution itself would give all powers to the government officials and jeopardize the freedoms of the people. The Bill of Rights laid clear understanding that these rights and freedoms of the people could not be violated regardless of the actions of the government officials.
Why did the Framers agree to include the Bill of Rights?
Actually, the original draft of the Constitution had no Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a collection of ten amendments, or "changes." These changes were made in order to clarify the position of the document concerning certain issues.
What is the history background of bill of rights?
In the late 1700s, many people felt the proposed Constitution of the United States did not go far enough in protecting the fundamental principles of individual rights, putting ratification of the Constitution in danger. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were proposed as a means of obtaining the votes necessary to ratify the Constitution.
What is the history background of the Bill of Rights?
In the late 1700s, many people felt the proposed Constitution of the United States did not go far enough in protecting the fundamental principles of individual rights, putting ratification of the Constitution in danger. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill Of Rights, were proposed as a means of obtaining the votes necessary to ratify the Constitution.
What were the Founding Fathers' opinions on the Bill of Rights?
The founding fathers were either Federalists or Anti-Federalists. Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton thought that the Bill of Rights was not needed, their new constitution was perfect in their minds and they felt that ratification was not needed. Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson were in favor of the Bill of Rights, the average person would not be able to read the new constitution and Jefferson and others felt that the government would gain to much power with out the Bill of Rights. The famous Federalist believed that a bill of rights were not necessary in that the new constitution gave the federal government no powers to hamper the civil rights of its citizens. Madison, who finally wrote the Bill, was certain that the state constitutions gave its citizens the rights quite properly. Nevertheless, ratification was vital, so the Federalists agreed to 10 amendments.
What were main argument for and against ratification of the constitution?
The main argument as to whether or not the Constitution should be ratified centered around the fact that it didn't contain a Bill of Rights. Federalists wanted a strong national government. Anti-federalists felt that without a Bill of Rights, the government would have too much power.
