Which of the following best explains the federalists view on including the bill of rights in the constitution? a. the constitution already limited powers of government, so a list of rights was not needed. b. the government would not be able to enforce penalties against these violating rights. c. a bill of rights would threaten the freedom of any people not included on the list period d. a bill of rights would weaken the government to the point that it could not function.

A. The constitution already limited Powers of government, so a list of rights was not needed.

Explanation:

The idea behind having a Constitution is that it limits the powers of the government and sets certain law and rules that are to be followed while governing. Hence when there were debates for the "ratification" of the Constitution, the Federalists concluded that the Constitution didn’t require any list of rights, as the Constitution itself limits the powers of the government. Moreover, Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was drafted with a strong concept of "Separation of Powers", and the Check and Balance system. Under this the government has been divided into three categories and these three categories check and limit the powers of each other.

hello! : )

i think a judge or jury, as they preside over the court and is the central figure in a trial.

hope this and i hope i answered in time!

good luck!

~ destiny ^_^

i think they should to be honest

explanation: