The Anti-Federalists opposed a lot of the ideas of a strong or "big" central government. Their main concerns included the fact that the constitution before the Bill of Rights contained no language guaranteeing individual rights, they feared that the position of the presidency could eventually evolve into a position more like a king or a dictator, and they didn't like the fact that the rights of the states were being undermined.
One, the anti-federalists did not want to continue the constitution because it gave too much power to the national government. Two, they felt like the people deserved to have rights and the constitution didn't. Last, the federalists were trying to give the national government control again.
well this is a very complicated question i dont think it will ever be answered knobjockey
... that guy before wot a pris
constituation
they didn't get to practice the Bill of Rights
they didn't get to practice the Bill of Rights
Antifederalists
it had no bill of rights
they were against ratifying the constitution
The major argument was the absence of a bill of rights in the Constitution
They would not have enough state votes to pass the constitution if slavery was outlawed by it. The south would have voted against it.
it did not guarantee basic rights
it did not guarantee basic 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.
many members of congress and the state government were against the new constitution, because it took power from the government and gave it to the people.
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.