The conflict between Federalists and Antifederalists was the major thread of late eighteenth century American politics. A major sticking point was the need for a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Students should recall that Federalists like Alexander Hamilton did not see a need for a Bill of Rights to be added, while Antifederalists James Madison spearheaded the amendments.

Debates between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists can be considered the first political party debates in America. Anti-Federalists disliked the creation of the constitution because they feared it was creating a too powerful central government. The Federalists favored the constitution due to issues with the Articles of Confederation and its lack of a strong central government. A compromise was reached with the formation of the Bill of Rights which was designed to protect civil liberties of all citizens.

The 4^th amendment is more commonly known for its protection from unreasonable search and seizure, it is part of the Bill of Rights, which was designed for the protection of individual rights.

The center of the debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalist was the power that the central government would have. Anti-Federalists argued for the protection of states and individual rights. Anti-Federalists such as Mason were began to support the Constitution when the bill of rights was added to protect states and individual rights.

Fairly easy question as long as you know your amendments. The answer is the 10th amendment, as it reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In somewhat plainer English, this means that any governmental power that is neither (1) given to the federal government, nor (2) forbidden to the states is given to the states or the “people” (citizens). It is for this very reason that the 10th amendment is commonly referred to as the “states’ rights” amendment.

The First Amendment concerns five different liberties that are fairly similar, including the right of the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Amendment does not mandate that the government need to address or address the “grievances,” but this ensures that people can still formally show their displeasure to the government.

Surprisingly, the right to freedom of speech –one of the most famous individual freedoms– was not part of the initial Constitution. Freedom of speech and others of the most well-known rights (such as freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and freedom of religion), as contained in the Bill of Rights, were all later additions to the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were some of the most vociferous advocates of the Bill of Rights and many states refused to ratify the Constitution at all unless such personal freedoms were given explicit written protection. The ten Amendments that together comprise the Bill of Rights were therefore added to the Constitution in 1791, in order to allay these fears.

The constitution as originally drafted, did not have any safeguard for individual liberties. Many objected to this, so as a condition of ratification, it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be drafted.

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", thus defining double jeopardy as being tried for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment provides people the right to remain silent instead of prohibiting it. Although the Bill of Rights does prohibit the use of cruel and unusual punishment, it's prohibition is under the Eighth Amendment. The Bill of Rights guarantees a jury of your peers, not prohibits it.

It is indeed true that originally, many Congressmen and federal judges had doubts as to exactly how far beyond the national government’s scope the Bill of Rights could legally reach. In fact, in 1833 the Supreme Court even ruled that the Bill of Rights only imposed limitations on the federal government, leaving the states and local administrations exempt. However, the Court quite clearly found this stance to be deficient, as did other sectors of government, and so in a further case (which proceeded in 1925), the Supreme Court first established the so-called incorporation doctrine. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court defined the incorporation doctrine as the principle by which the Bill of Rights could be applied beyond the national government, to the conduct of state and local governments as well. Especially relevant for the doctrine’s justification is the Due Process Clause, contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents either state or federal governments from infringing on any individual’s life, liberty, or property rights without due process of the law (meaning that special legal permission must be obtained, usually under severe circumstances).