Answers for your legal questions

Why did the anti federalists want a bill of rights to be added to the constitution? law answers (45259)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "why did the anti federalists want a bill of rights to be added to the constitution?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

Does China have a bill of rights?

A:  China does have a Bill of rights, however it is not effective in upholding human rights for people in China. So in practice it is different to that of the US Bill of rights, where government knows that if it makes laws inconsistent with its Bill of rights then the courts can rule it out. The Chinese bill of rights is not enforceable or has not been consistently enforced. China does have a bill of rights and it is entrenched in their constitution, the bill of righs is section II of their constitution. In this manner it is very much like the US bill of

Q: 

What was the Bill of rights?

A:  The Bill of rights is a portion of the constitution which includes the first ten amendments. A person’s right to speech, assembly, religion, protection against illegal searches, and due process under the law are among the rights protected. Generally minors, or people under 18 years old, have “fewer rights”, but they are still protected under the constitution. The following are the first ten amendments as laid out in the constitution: First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging...

Q: 

At what age is the bill of rights and the constitution in effect?

A:  There is no set age for the Bill of rights or the constitution to protect a citizen of the United States. The Bill of rights is a piece of the constitution which includes the first ten amendments. A person’s right to speech, assembly, religion, protection against illegal searches, and due process under the law are among the rights protected. Generally minors, or people under 18 years old, have “fewer rights”, but they are still protected under the constitution. For more information on the constitution and Bill of rights...

Q: 

Why would Jefferson want the Bill of rights?

A:  Neil wrote:have heard this was "to make sure" etc., but that sounds like a flabby argument. What do you think, and what was said at the time? No, that is pretty much correct. You see Jeffferson and the anti-federalists did not even want to ratify the constitution. They just wanted to amend the AoC. Madison, jay, and the federalists (who were really nationalists) wanted a constitution. The anti-federalists said that they would agree more with the federalist position provided that a bill of

Q: 

Hamilton''s WARNING

A:  A reading of Blakely v. Washington makes it very clear that the courts words were in discussion of the powers that can be exercised by a judge vs. those of a jury. None of it has anything to do with Hamilton''s concerns which were geared toward the conflict of the government vs. the governed. reserved rights fishin'' wrote:A reading of Blakely v. Washington makes it very clear that the courts words were in discussion of the powers that can be exercised by a judge vs. those of a jury. None of it has anything to do with Hamilton''s concerns which were geared toward the conflict of the government vs. the governed. A reading of Blakely v. Washington makes it very clear that the majority of the court is adhering to long-standing precedent that the Court recounted when...

Q: 

Who wrote the 6th amendment and when?

A:  The Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution guarantees several rights to people accused of a criminal offense. The Sixth Amendment states:''In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'' The sixth Amendment was part of the Bill of rights, the first 10...

Q: 

How can the American legal system, which is so devoted to protecting individual rights,

A:  I assume that you are saying that rules that limit what the police can do to catch a suspect, for example, jeopardize the right of the rest of us to be safe. When the police are forced to abide by rules and such, you can say that our security is jeopardized.  However, if they were not forced to abide by rules, our liberty would be jeopardized just as badly if not worse. In other words, if there weren''t limits on what the police could do, we would be more or less at their mercy.  They could pretty much do whatever they wanted to pin any crime on any person. So, if we didn''t have the protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, the police would be more of a danger to our rights than crimninals are now. I think...

Q: 

When state law or federal law conflicts with common law which one stands?

A:  Common law is the system, not the statute. In the US common law system, the constitution prevails over everything federal law supersedes (wins in a conflict) state laws or local ordinances. state law supersedes local ordinances. There are exceptions. OSHA, for example mandates all states adhere to OSHA as a minimum standard. It allows states to set higher worker protection standards. So if you are hurt in california, the CSHA laws take precedence over federal OSHA. In English common law, The Queen and Parliament are higher than the constitution but otherwise the same...

Q: 

Ron Paul, Republican, Says States Have Right to Legalize Pot?

A:  I believe Paul''s entire platform is based on the ideas of lassaz-faire capitalism (likely misspelled). I heard him give a speech regarding how he wants to legalize pot, and his main platform point was that the government should not butt in enough to make it *illegal*. He also believes we should eliminate the IRS and the entire national Board of Education...because government should do...nothing (according to him, anyway). I see him as just an extremist that''s gone so far to the right, he''s almost circled and is back to the left on many things. I don''t find what Ron Paul says to be contradictory at all because his idea is to put the responsibility on the states. I don''t know what his experience with drug rehab has been, but it''s success rate is pretty low over...

Q: 

What form of government did the articles of confederation of 1787 support?

A:  On the other hand, many anti-federalists supported a more republican form of government consisting of a loose confederation of sovereign states that would form an alliance only for the purpose of mutual defense. The articles of confederation, which governed the 13 states in national matters until 1787, when the constitution was ratified, epitomized this form of government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was unable to levy and collect taxes on its own behalf....