The anti-federalists are credited with persuading the federalists to add a bill of rights to the united states constitution. this fact could lead to the conclusion that the federalists were against protecting personal rights; however, that is not true. the reason the federalists did not see the need for a bill of rights is because a) there was one already in the articles of confederation and it was expected to carry over into the new government. b) they strongly believed in john locke's "natural rights theory" and that no government would infringe on that again. c) the political rivalry between them and the anti-federalists was so intense that the federalists opposed any suggestion the anti-federalists offered. d) they believed it was unnecessary since the constitution limited the federal government, and each

D) they believed it was unnecessary since the Constitution limited the federal government, and each

Explanation:

The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton. The Federalists were the "first political party" of the United States. They argued that the Constitution didn’t need any "Bill of Rights" as it would "limit the rights" of the people. This would do little good in protecting the rights of the people. Further they argued that the Constitution didn’t require a "Bill of Rights" as the Constitution itself limits the powers of the government and doesn’t allow it to abuse its power. Furthermore the check and balance system of the Constitution assures and guarantees the rights of the people.

they united the colonies in their fight against the british.

1) the andrew carniage's purchase and renovation of skibo castle have been very good and auspicious for the local people of dornoch firth, scotland because this is a turistic attraction for many people who would want to know the castle, the local people would take advantage about this.

2) yes, it could.