which was one argument raised by those who opposed ratification of the constitution in 1787?

Question

A)the constitution lacked a bill of rights
B)the constitution failed to create a judicial branch
C)the constitution gave the people too much power
D)the constitution gave state government too much power

Answer 1

A is the correct response.

Answer 2

Have you done your research?
The answer is here:
Ratification was not a foregone conclusion. Able, articulate men used newspapers, pamphlets, and public meetings to debate ratification of the Constitution. Those known as Antifederalists opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. Some continued to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document. Others complained that the delegates in Philadelphia represented only the well-born few and consequently had crafted a document that served their special interests and reserved the franchise for the propertied classes. Another frequent objection was that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government at the expense of the states and that a representative government could not manage a republic this large. The most serious criticism was that the Constitutional Convention had failed to adopt a bill of rights proposed by George Mason. In New York, Governor George Clinton expressed these Antifederalist concerns in several published newspaper essays under the pen name Cato, while Patrick Henry and James Monroe led the opposition in Virginia.

D.

Answer 3

A- Though not called that until after it was written, many states refused to ratify the constitution until at least some these amendments were made. (i.e. New York required some while Virginia required others, etc. )

Not B- Because the original draft of the constitution absolutely had a judicial branch.

Not C - Because the entire idea of a the nation was to give the people more power than ever before

Not D - Because that was the reason to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Answer 4

have you ever completed your examine? the respond is right here: Ratification exchange into no longer a foregone end. able, articulate adult men used newspapers, pamphlets, and public conferences to communicate ratification of the form. those time-venerated as Antifederalists antagonistic the form for a style of reasons. some persisted to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had handed their congressional authority by potential of adjusting the Articles of Confederation with an unlawful new document. Others complained that the delegates in Philadelphia represented in user-friendly terms the nicely-born few and hence had crafted a document that served their particular hobbies and reserved the franchise for the propertied instructions. yet another everyday objection exchange into that the form gave too plenty ability to the significant government on the cost of the states and that a representative government ought to no longer take care of a republic this massive. the main severe grievance exchange into that the Constitutional convention had did no longer undertake a invoice of rights proposed by potential of George Mason. In long island, Governor George Clinton expressed those Antifederalist concerns in distinctive printed newspaper essays under the pen call Cato, together as Patrick Henry and James Monroe led the opposition in Virginia. D.

Answer 5

(a), the lack of a Bill of Rights was a major objection. That's why they were adopted. They were promised in return for ratification.

The other answers are all wrong. The constitution does create a judicial branch, it didn't vest all that much power in the people (they couldn't elect senators, judges are appointed, they don't vote for president but for electors), and state government is MORE limited than under the articles of Confederation.

Answer 6

All of them. And it was 1789 I think....13 years after declaration of independence.

C) they werent afraid that it gave the people too much power they were afraid it gave ignorant, uneducated ppl too much power, unlike the framers who were rich aristocrats.

D) not really, they were afraid the constituion gave the US gov't too much power and took away states powers. As you will see later on, it took many Supreme COurt cases to give the federal gov't real teeth....starting with Marbury versus Madison I think, where states rights were argued for. It's been a while for me, so look it up on wikipedia or something.

B) it did????????

A) Simple, they were afraid that 10 rights listed were not enough. they were under the assumption that once you list the few, you would not be able to add anything on later on in hindsight. Their belief was that it was chiseled in stone, whatever they put in it initially.

Answer 7

A, no bill of rights. The Constitution is designed to restrict the GOVERNMENT, not the people!

Answer 8

E....You just can't find a good Knish in Philadelphia

Answer 9

E) They serve up weak sauce.

Answer 10

A