Anti-federalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Anti-federalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights." Implied powers are political powers granted to the U.S. government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. Expressed power would be to regulate commerce and the implied power would be setting minimum wage. How far can implied powers go? Giving up fundamental rights would be contrary to the common good.

Federalist's believed a bill of rights wasn't necessary. Viewing the bill of rights as "paper protection" that usually get overridden. There was a clear distinction between state and federal constitutions. States created their own constitution giving "authority" delegating issues to the states preserving the right of checks and balances.

What we refer today as the Bill of Rights was not part of the original U.S. Constitution. Whether it was a good idea or a bad idea to specify certain rights at all was strongly debated at the time the U.S. Constitution was going through the process of ratification. What were the arguments for and against the Bill of Rights?