It has been said, in answer to this objection, that such declarations of rights, however requisite they might be in the constitutions of the states, are not necessary in the general constitution, because, "in the former case, every thing which is not reserved is given, but in the latter, the reverse of the proposition prevails, and every thing which is not given is reserved." It requires but little attention to discover, that this mode of reasoning is rather specious than solid. The powers, rights and authority, granted to the general government by this constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any state government -- It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness -- Life, liberty, and property are under its control. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in the case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the state governments. To set this matter in a clear light, permit me to instance some of the articles of the bills of rights of the individual states, and apply them to the case in question.

According to this excerpt from the Anti-Federalist Papers, the opponents of the ratification of the Constitution felt it —
gave too much power to the federal government
did not give the people enough of a voice in their own government
did not protect individual rights adequately
did not allow for changes in leadership that reflected the people's desires
set up an exclusive leadership that would not meet the needs of the people