Discuss the debate and essential compromises made between Federalists and Anti-federalists over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Federalists were concerned with getting the new Constitution and the new federal re-publican system of government off the ground. They believed a Bill of Rights was un-necessary because each state already had such a document in place. In contrast, the Antifederalists were concerned with limiting the power of the new federal government and believed a Bill of Rights was the only way to limit that power. The Antifederalists argued that there was a great disparity among the individual colonies (soon to be states) over which rights were protected and to what extent. They believed the Bill of Rights was necessary to provide a consistent check on federal and state power. Alex-ander Hamilton in Federalist No. 84 argued that the bill of rights was unnecessary and that such a list of rights would be dangerous to individual liberty, as there could not be a complete list of rights between the people and the government and therefore the document would not be effective. Antifederalists countered that consistent protections must exist and that one of the amendments (the 9th) should address unenumerated rights and powers, while the 10th Amendment should address the reserved powers of states (anything not going to the federal government specifically should go to the states and/or the people).