Will give crown

which answer correctly describes the federalists' position including for a bill of rights in the constitution?
the bill of rights was needed to unify the states against europe.
the bill of rights was not needed because the citizens first would have to earn rights.
the bill of rights was needed to override the constitution in emergencies.
the bill of rights was not needed because checks and balances would limit government power.

i think its A but im sorry if im wrong bby

The Bill of Rights was not needed because checks and balances would limit government power.

Explanation:

The ratification of the US Constitution was not easy. America was divided between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists defended the need to ratify the Constitution and create the Federalist system. The Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the US Constitution because they believed that this new constitution created a strong central government that had the potential to be tyrannical.

As a way to ratify the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists came to a deal and created the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights to safeguard individual liberties.

i honesty don't know, good luck tho dawg

explanation:

i have ni idea