CJUS 300 Quiz 3 - Understanding The Bill Of Rights And Its Implications | Questions And
Answers, Latest Update | 100% Correct Answers | Graded
1. Why did the Bill of Rights come about?
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1791, it was intended
to protect the people from abuse by the federal government of its newly acquired power in several
specific realms: the rights of political expression, the rights and protections accorded individuals
accused of crimes, private property protection, and the rights of the people under federal and state
laws.
While the Bill of Rights was not included in the original U.S. Constitution, the notion that the federal
government would abuse its powers and threaten the rights of the people was very much a part of the
constitutional debate. The Anti-federalists, who advocated states’ rights, strongly opposed the
arrangement of powers into federal and shared powers in the U.S. Constitution. In the end, the Anti-
federalists suggested a compromise in which, once the Constitution was ratified, a series of
amendments enumerating specific protections would be considered by the new Congress.
Read the excerpts from Anti-Federalist No. 84, “On the Lack of a Bill of Rights,” and answer the
questions that follow.
The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and
precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this
subject there is almost an entire silence. . . .
This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by
universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge
their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any
sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from
which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta [Magna Carta]
and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more, I
presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our
own States; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has
certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. . . .
So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in
those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of
America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things,
vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it.
(Source: “Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84, On the Lack of a Bill of Rights,” Rights of the People,
www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_84.php)
, Which of the following statements would the Anti-federalists agree with, based on the excerpts?
The lack of a bill of rights in the new Constitution is problematic.
All state constitutions have bills of rights, making the inclusion of one in the national Constitution
unnecessary.
Including a bill of rights in the new Constitution is superfluous.
Points:
1/1
Close Explanation
Explanation:
A key objection of the Anti-federalists to the new Constitution was its lack of an explicit bill of rights. It
is clear that the Anti-federalists thought that the lack of a bill of rights in the new Constitution was
problematic because there are several arguments about the desirability of enumerating the rights of
the people in the new nation and the potential problems associated with the exclusion of a bill of rights
woven throughout the excerpted sections.
Which of the following examples were given in support of a bill of rights in Anti-Federalist No.
84? Check all that apply.
The French, whose government lacks a bill of rights, are notorious for eliminating individual rights
and freedoms.
The state constitutions all have bills of rights.
The Canadian government is the envy of the world with the extensive rights offered to its citizens.
The British Magna Carta and Bill of Rights have provided security for British citizens.
Points:
1/1
2. Interpreting the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has been subject to extensive interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court
since Marbury v. Madison (1803), when the Court ruled that its powers of interpretation included the
ability to nullify laws it deemed unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. Since 1925, the
Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review to require states to abide by most of the civil
liberties protections found in the federal Bill of Rights.
Today, the Supreme Court acknowledges that guarantees found in the Bill of Rights are not absolute.
Sometimes, federal and state governments will restrict an activity protected by the Constitution
because they believe that restriction is necessary to protect the public or to preserve order. When
those restrictions are challenged, the Supreme Court uses its power of judicial review to determine
whether the government has appropriately justified its limitation of this particular right.
Answers, Latest Update | 100% Correct Answers | Graded
1. Why did the Bill of Rights come about?
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1791, it was intended
to protect the people from abuse by the federal government of its newly acquired power in several
specific realms: the rights of political expression, the rights and protections accorded individuals
accused of crimes, private property protection, and the rights of the people under federal and state
laws.
While the Bill of Rights was not included in the original U.S. Constitution, the notion that the federal
government would abuse its powers and threaten the rights of the people was very much a part of the
constitutional debate. The Anti-federalists, who advocated states’ rights, strongly opposed the
arrangement of powers into federal and shared powers in the U.S. Constitution. In the end, the Anti-
federalists suggested a compromise in which, once the Constitution was ratified, a series of
amendments enumerating specific protections would be considered by the new Congress.
Read the excerpts from Anti-Federalist No. 84, “On the Lack of a Bill of Rights,” and answer the
questions that follow.
The principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and
precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this
subject there is almost an entire silence. . . .
This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by
universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge
their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any
sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from
which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta [Magna Carta]
and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more, I
presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our
own States; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has
certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. . . .
So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in
those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of
America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things,
vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it.
(Source: “Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84, On the Lack of a Bill of Rights,” Rights of the People,
www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_84.php)
, Which of the following statements would the Anti-federalists agree with, based on the excerpts?
The lack of a bill of rights in the new Constitution is problematic.
All state constitutions have bills of rights, making the inclusion of one in the national Constitution
unnecessary.
Including a bill of rights in the new Constitution is superfluous.
Points:
1/1
Close Explanation
Explanation:
A key objection of the Anti-federalists to the new Constitution was its lack of an explicit bill of rights. It
is clear that the Anti-federalists thought that the lack of a bill of rights in the new Constitution was
problematic because there are several arguments about the desirability of enumerating the rights of
the people in the new nation and the potential problems associated with the exclusion of a bill of rights
woven throughout the excerpted sections.
Which of the following examples were given in support of a bill of rights in Anti-Federalist No.
84? Check all that apply.
The French, whose government lacks a bill of rights, are notorious for eliminating individual rights
and freedoms.
The state constitutions all have bills of rights.
The Canadian government is the envy of the world with the extensive rights offered to its citizens.
The British Magna Carta and Bill of Rights have provided security for British citizens.
Points:
1/1
2. Interpreting the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has been subject to extensive interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court
since Marbury v. Madison (1803), when the Court ruled that its powers of interpretation included the
ability to nullify laws it deemed unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. Since 1925, the
Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review to require states to abide by most of the civil
liberties protections found in the federal Bill of Rights.
Today, the Supreme Court acknowledges that guarantees found in the Bill of Rights are not absolute.
Sometimes, federal and state governments will restrict an activity protected by the Constitution
because they believe that restriction is necessary to protect the public or to preserve order. When
those restrictions are challenged, the Supreme Court uses its power of judicial review to determine
whether the government has appropriately justified its limitation of this particular right.
