Which of the following is an accurate discussion of why a bill of rights for the national government might not be necessary?(1 point)
Responses
A lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state.
A lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state.
A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution.
A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution.
The national government has only delegated powers.
The national government has only delegated powers.
The national government has only reserved powers.
A lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state. A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution.
The second option, "A lengthy list of rights were already protected by the Constitution," is an accurate discussion of why a bill of rights for the national government might not be necessary. The U.S. Constitution already includes protections for individual rights in the form of the Bill of Rights, which outlines specific rights and freedoms that the government is prohibited from infringing upon. Therefore, some argue that an additional bill of rights specifically for the national government may not be necessary since the Constitution already addresses these rights.
An accurate discussion of why a bill of rights for the national government might not be necessary is that a lengthy list of rights were already protected by each state. One could argue that since the states already had their own protections in place, a separate bill of rights for the national government would be redundant. In the United States, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, each state had its own constitution and laws that safeguarded the rights of its citizens. These state-level protections often included provisions similar to what would later be included in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, some might argue that it was not necessary to explicitly enumerate the rights of individuals at the national level because they were already protected by the states' constitutions.
To arrive at this answer, one would need to have a basic understanding of the structure and powers of the United States government, as well as the historical context surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. By considering the fact that the states already had their own protections in place, one can logically conclude that a bill of rights might not have been seen as necessary for the national government.