What did Anti-Federalists like Brutus argue regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

• A. It was essential to protect individual liberties.
• B. It was unnecessary because the Constitution already limited powers.
• C. It would grant too much power to the states.
• D. It would threaten the authority of the Supreme Court.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that Brutus and other Anti-Federalists argued for a Bill of Rights because they believed explicit protections for individual liberties were necessary to prevent the new national government from abusing power. They worried that the Constitution granted broad powers to the federal government and, without explicit limits on rights, people could lose fundamental freedoms. Adding a Bill of Rights would set clear constraints and reassure citizens that their liberties would be protected, making ratification more acceptable.

That’s why this option is the best answer: Brutus didn’t think the bill was unnecessary or redundant. He didn’t argue it would empower states or threaten the Supreme Court; his central concern was that rights needed explicit protection against federal overreach.