susiedancing16
contestada

PLEASE HELP ASAP It's already overdue Its about Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Bill of Rights


Part One

1. What words does the author use to describe the powers in the Constitution?


2. Does the Necessary and Proper Clause quoted in this excerpt comfort or upset the author? Why?


3. Does the author believe a Bill of Rights is necessary? Why?


4. Does the author trust the future members of Congress? Why does this matter?


5. Is this author a Federalist or Anti-Federalist? How can you tell?


part Two

1. What words does the author use to describe “bills of rights”?


2. What part of the Constitution is quoted in the first paragraph?


3. Does the author believe there is a need for the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution?


4. Summarize two points of the author’s argument in your own words.


5. Is this author a Federalist or Anti-Federalist? How can you tell? (Use at least two pieces of the text to help you answer this.)

Respuesta :

Answer:

1. The author uses the words "undefined", "unbounded" and "immense" to describe the powers of the constitution.

2. Upset: it makes the Congress even more powerful than it’s previous long list of expressed powers

3. A Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the rights of citizens. The proposed Constitution does not do enough.  

4. Yes he does, and it matters because if you don’t trust the people in power you wouldn’t have a real nation.

5.He seems more like an Anti-Federalist.

Part Two

1. Unnecessary and dangerous

2. From the Federalist No.84

3. No because he believes that its unnecessary and not needed in the constitution.

4. That the bill of rights is pointless and not realistic for the American people.

5 He is defiantly Anti-Federalist; He goes against everything Federalism is for.

anthougo

PART ONE:

1. The author of the first excerpt described the powers in the Constitution as "undefined," "Unbound," "Unlimited," and "Immense."

 

2. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" quoted in the first excerpt upsets the author. The author thinks that nothing prevents Congress from being overbearing.

 

3. The author of the first excerpt believes strongly that a Bill of Rights is necessary. The author thinks that the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution are limitless.  He thinks a Bill of Rights will protect the states and individuals and limit excessive government at the center.

 

4. The author questions the wisdom of trusting the future members of Congress because nobody can guarantee that they will always remain wise and virtuous.

 

5. The author of the first excerpt is an Anti-Federalist. Anti-Federalists think that the Constitution without a Bill of Rights creates a presidential King, like the British King George II.

 

PART TWO:

1. The words that the author of the second excerpt uses to describe the "bills of rights" are "unnecessary" and "dangerous."

 

2. In the first paragraph of the second excerpt, the author quoted the Preamble of the Constitution.

 

3. The author of the second excerpt does not believe there is a need for a bill of rights to the Constitution, concluding that it was "unnecessary and dangerous."

 

4. The two points of the author of the second excerpt are a) The Bill of Rights is not necessary to be added to the Constitution because the people have not surrendered their rights to the Constitution. b) The addition of the Bill of Rights would grant powers to the government through the exceptions that it creates that were not previously granted by the Constitution.

 

5. The author of the second excerpt is a Federalist. Federalists do not think that the Constitution gives unlimited powers to the federal government. Federalists disagree with the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

 

Thus, based on their views, the first author is an Anti-Federalist, and the second author is a Federalist.

Learn more: https://brainly.com/question/18109948

Otras preguntas