Name ____________________________________________________
SS.7.C.1.8
Period _____
Date _________________________
Explain the viewpoints of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists regarding the ratification of the Constitution
and inclusion of a bill of rights.
Essential Question: Should the U.S. Constitution have been ratified without the Bill of Rights,
or was a bill of rights necessary?
Source
Main Idea / Message / Important Details
How does this document answer the
essential question?
Source 1
Excerpt from George
Mason’s Objections
to the Constitution,
Oct. 1787
Source 2
Excerpt from
Federalist Paper #84
by Alexander
Hamilton
Source 3
Ratification map
Source 4
Bill of Rights
infographic
Thesis:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source 1 – Excerpt from George Mason’s Objections to the
Constitution, October 1787
There is no declaration of rights; and, the laws of the general government being paramount
to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate
states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the
common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by
the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states. . . .
This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to
foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive
aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in
the one or the other.
Source 2 – Excerpt from Federalist Paper #84 by Alexander Hamilton
The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains
no bill of rights . . . It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their
origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of
privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA,
obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John . . . It is evident, therefore, that,
according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly
founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and
servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they
have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution
for the United States of America.” . . . I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense
and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed
Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than
were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? . . .
Source 3 – Ratification
map showing areas with a
majority supporting
ratification and areas with
a majority against
ratification
Source 4 – Bill of
Rights
Infographic from
kidsdisover.com