Which statement summarizes the original federalist position on the bill of rights?

question 2 options:

adopting a bill of rights was too risky because it might threaten ratification of the constitution.

no amendments were needed, as the constitution already had protections against excessive government power.

the bill of rights should be adopted because national sovereignty should always come before states’ rights.

additional amendments were needed, given the constitution’s lack of individual protections.

The correct answer is the second statement: No amendments were needed, as the Constitution already had protections against excessive government power.

Explanation:

The Federalists, usually represented mainly by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, believed the Constitution -- which was about to be ratified by the states -- had plenty of protection against tyranny from the government.

Thus they didn't think it was necessary to attend anti-Federalist's demands for specific states protections. They believed that a strong government, with limited power as framed by the Constitution, was better to develop the country economically and socially.

Anti-Federalists, however, believed real democracy -- keep in mind that no one of these people included the end of slavery as a democratic goal so the meaning of democracy changes with time and politics -- happened in the states and not in the federal government. Thus states should have their rights directly affirmed in order to really bring them to life.

So it became necessary to adopt a Bill of Rights so the ratification of the Constitution was without trouble. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791.

monitor contract compliance and results of forestry activities to assure adherence to government regulations.  

can i have brainlest