Question

many federalists argued that the u.s. constitution did not need a bill of rights.
what was the reasoning behind their argument?
choose 3 answers:
a by listing out specific rights, a bill of rights might suggest that other rights werent protected.
b a bill of rights would put too many limits on the federal government, making it difficult to govern.
c states already had bills of rights in their state constitutions.
d all of the necessary protections for individual rights were already in article v.
e the national government was a government of limited powers, so a federal bill of rights was unnecessary.

Explanation:

• Option A: Federalists worried that enumerating specific rights might imply unlisted rights were not protected.
• Option C: Many states already had their own bills of rights in state constitutions, so a federal one seemed redundant.
• Option E: The federal government had limited powers (only those granted), so a bill of rights to limit it was seen as unnecessary.
• Option B is incorrect as Federalists generally supported a strong enough federal government, and a bill of rights limiting it wasn't their main concern. Option D is incorrect as Article V is about amendments, not individual rights protections.

Answer:

A. By listing out specific rights, a bill of rights might suggest that other rights weren't protected.
C. States already had bills of rights in their state constitutions.
E. The national government was a government of limited powers, so a federal bill of rights was unnecessary.