What presidential power under the constitution led the anti federalist to urge for a bill of right?
The presidential power under the Constitution that led the anti-federalists to urge for a Bill of Rights was the strong executive powers vested in the President. The anti-federalists were concerned that the President could potentially become a monarch or a tyrant, wielding unchecked powers and infringing on individual liberties. They argued that a Bill of Rights was necessary to explicitly protect the rights and freedoms of citizens from potential abuses by the executive branch, ensuring that individual rights would be safeguarded.
The presidential power under the Constitution that led the Anti-Federalists to urge for a Bill of Rights was the power to enforce the laws.
The presidential power under the Constitution that led the Anti-Federalists to urge for a Bill of Rights is the power to execute and enforce the laws. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that this broad executive power could potentially be abused and infringed upon individual rights. They believed that without explicit protection of individual liberties, the President could become a tyrant or exercise unchecked authority.
To find the answer to your question, one could start by examining the debates and discussions surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. This would involve reading primary sources such as the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist writings, and the Constitutional Convention debates. Analyzing the arguments put forth by the Anti-Federalists and their concerns over centralized executive power would provide insight into why they felt a Bill of Rights was necessary. Additionally, studying the historical context of the time, such as the American Revolutionary War and the experiences of the Anti-Federalists with British monarchy, can help understand their motivations for demanding protections for individual rights.