Which of the following best explains the federalists' view on including a list of rights in the constitution? a. the constitution already limited powers of government, so a list was not needed. b. the government would not be able to enforce penalties against those violating rights. c. a bill of rights would threaten the freedom of any people not included in the list. d. a bill of rights would weaken a government that needed to be strong to function.

A. The Constitution already limited powers of government, so a list was not needed.

Explanation:

During the debates for ratification of the proposed Constitution, Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a list of rights, because it already established enumerated powers to the government, and the government was limited to them. Furthermore, they argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the government was founded under the principles of Separation of Powers and the Checks and Balances system, under which the power of the government had to be divided into three branches and each branch was allowed to oversee, check and limit the other so no part abuse from its power.

if a bill passes in the house of representatives, it goes through a similar process in the senate. before a bill becomes law, it must be approved by both chambers of the legislature. the bill must pass with the same wording in the house of representatives and the senate before it can go to the governor for approval.

it for the workers lik if you have a job thats what its for

explanation: