Which of the following best explains the federalists' view on including a list of rights in the constitution? a. the constitution already limited powers of government, so a list was not needed. b. the government would not be able to enforce penalties against those violating rights. c. a bill of rights would threaten the freedom of any people not included in the list. d. a bill of rights would weaken a government that needed to be strong to function.

A. The Constitution already limited powers of government, so a list was not needed.

Explanation:

During the debates for ratification of the proposed Constitution, Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a list of rights, because it already established enumerated powers to the government, and the government was limited to them. Furthermore, they argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the government was founded under the principles of Separation of Powers and the Checks and Balances system, under which the power of the government had to be divided into three branches and each branch was allowed to oversee, check and limit the other so no part abuse from its power.

the answer is a

their confiscation of contraband and the sinking if the lusitania

in february 1787, congress decided that a convention should be convened to revise the articles of confederation, the nation’s first constitution. in may, 55 delegates came to philadelphia, and the constitutional convention began. debates erupted over representation in congress, over slavery, and over the new executive branch. the debates continued through four hot and muggy months. but eventually the delegates reached compromises, and on september 17, they produced the u.s. constitution, replacing the articles with the governing document that has functioned effectively for more than 200 years.