How were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists
different with their views on
if a Bill of Rights is needed?

not an answer but its not letting me ask a question so my question is to be more specific

Explanation:

Explanation:

There were two sides to the Great Debate: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists did not. One of the major issues these two parties debated concerned the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

"a shortage of traditional labor created new opportunities in the workplace. a major cause of the internment of japanese americans during world war ii was. racial prejudice. in the early 1940's, the "destroyers-for-military-bases deal" with great britain and the lend-lease act were evidence that the united states."