Question

According to the Anti-Federalist Papers, are the Bill of Rights necessary? Why or why not? Cite evidence from at least one of the Anti-Federalist Papers to support your claim.

Answer 1

Answer:

They believe that the Bill of Rights are not necessary because the government should have control over these decisions.

The Federalists wanted a strong government and strong executive branch, while the anti-Federalists wanted a weaker central government. The Federalists did not want a bill of rights —they thought the new constitution was sufficient. The anti-federalists demanded a bill of rights.

Explanation:

Answer 2

Answer:

$\boxed {\boxed {\sf Necessary}}$

Explanation:

The Anti-Federalists felt that a Bill of Rights was necessary.

Here is an excerpt from the 46th Anti-Federalist paper:

• "The Congress are therefore vested with the supreme legislative power, without control. In giving such immense, such unlimited powers, was there no necessity of a Bill of Rights, to secure to the people their liberties?"

In this quote, the Anti-Federalists state that the legislative branch is given great , but not restricted power. The Anti-Federalists worried the government would be powerful and out of control. They believed a Bill of Rights would protect the people and their freedoms, in case the government tried to rob the people of their rights.