Question

select all of the following arguments an anti - federalist would make in favor of a bill of rights
a separation of powers will protect against tyranny
state governments are poorly equipped to handle legal matters
a strong central government will become corrupt and abuse its power
state governments are too strong and threaten the national government
individual rights cannot be protected unless there are limits put in place

Explanation:

Anti - Federalists were concerned about a strong central government and the protection of individual rights.

• "A separation of powers will protect against tyranny": Anti - Federalists believed in checks and balances (separation of powers) to prevent tyranny, so this is a valid argument.
• "A strong central government will become corrupt and abuse its power": They feared the potential for a strong central government to be corrupt and abuse power, so this is an Anti - Federalist argument.
• "Individual rights cannot be protected unless there are limits put in place": A Bill of Rights was seen as necessary to limit government and protect individual rights, so this is a key Anti - Federalist argument.

The option "State governments are poorly equipped to handle legal matters" is not an Anti - Federalist argument for a Bill of Rights (they generally favored state power). The option "State governments are too strong and threaten the National Government" is a Federalist - like concern (Federalists wanted a strong national government), not Anti - Federalist.

Answer:

A. A separation of powers will protect against tyranny, C. A strong central government will become corrupt and abuse its power, E. Individual rights cannot be protected unless there are limits put in place