Summarize arguments against a Bill of Rights

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened.

Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights.

Explanation: i hope this helps some

"the sepoy rebellion was the result of many, many influences and stressors on the cultures of india living under british rule. in britain, it's called the sepoy mutiny on the indian mutiny, but in india, it's called the first war of independence.

the main reason is concerned to the british paramountcy , the belief in british   dominance in india political, economic and cultural life had been introduced in india about 1820."

"they were forced to grow crops that benefited the colonizing nations instead of feeding their own people."

i'm asking the same thing i asked this other cat all of