What conflicts were at the heart of constitutional debates between federalists and anti-federalists?

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 way too much power. Also without the Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

Explanation:

There were quite a few conflicts at the heart of constitutional debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The ten constitutional amendments and the Bill or Rights caused many arguments between the two. Federalists supported a central government, which would keep order easier. They claimed the Union was in danger of falling apart, that constitutions checks and balanced would preserve the states rights. Federalists endorsed the common law system, which was described by Blackstone. Anti-Federalist's supported the state governments, instead of a central one. A limited, streamlined government was preferred. They claimed the Constitution gave the government way too much power. They also claimed that the Articles of Confederation could be updated. Anti-Federalists opposed to the quartering of federal troops in civilian homes.

it took two men to wrestle rome back from chaos and turn a republic into an empire. in the first century bc, rome was a republic. power lay in the hands of the senate, elected by roman citizens. but the senators were fighting for power between themselves.

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005