Question
individual rights compent: in the over the Bill of Rights, both sides shared some views differently. Write the letter of each statementment. At the same time, the two sides saw those issues very differently A. The Constitution can be interpreted as granting unlimited government power. B. Individual rights are a basic part of liberty. C. A government "of the people" poses little danger to citizens' rights. D. Government power must be limited. E. The system of nobility is a threat to liberty. f. The Constitution makes it possible for government to take power away from the people. G. The Constitution protects individual rights by not giving the government any power over those rights. H. It doesn't make sense to list protections for rights the government has no power to violate. I. The Constitution's limits on power can't be trusted. J. Past abuses of power prove the need for limiting government. K. Listing individual rights is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of government abuse. L. The government cannot abuse powers the Constitution hasn't given it. square Bill of Rights: YES Both Bill of No Bill of Rights , No Deal
Answer
4.1
(134 Votes)
Kade
Master · Tutor for 5 years
Answer
To answer this question, we need to categorize each statement into one of three parts of the Venn diagram: "Bill of Rights: YES," "Bill of Rights: NO," or "Both." The "Bill of Rights: YES" category will include statements that support the idea that a Bill of Rights is necessary to protect individual rights and limit government power. The "Bill of Rights: NO" category will include statements that argue a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the Constitution already limits government power sufficiently or because the government is of the people and therefore not a threat. The "Both" category will include statements that both sides might agree on, such as the importance of individual rights and limited government, but without a clear stance on whether a Bill of Rights is necessary.Let's categorize each statement:A. The Constitution can be interpreted as granting unlimited government power.- Bill of Rights: YES (because this suggests a need for a Bill of Rights to limit government power)B. Individual rights are a basic part of liberty.- Both (both sides agree on the importance of individual rights)C. A government "of the people" poses little danger to citizens' rights.- Bill of Rights: NO (suggests that a Bill of Rights is not needed)D. Government power must be limited.- Both (both sides agree on the need for limited government)E. The system of nobility is a threat to liberty.- Not directly related to the argument over the Bill of Rights, but could be seen as a general statement both sides might agree onF. The Constitution makes it possible for government to take power away from the people.- Bill of Rights: YES (implies a Bill of Rights is needed to prevent this)G. The Constitution protects individual rights by not giving the government any power over those rights.- Bill of Rights: NO (suggests that a Bill of Rights is unnecessary)H. It doesn't make sense to list protections for rights the government has no power to violate.- Bill of Rights: NO (argues against the need for a Bill of Rights)I. The Constitution's limits on power can't be trusted.- Bill of Rights: YES (implies a lack of trust in the Constitution's ability to limit power without a Bill of Rights)J. Past abuses of power prove the need for limiting government.- Both (both sides might agree that government should be limited, but this doesn't specify a stance on the Bill of Rights)K. Listing individual rights is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of government abuse.- Bill of Rights: YES (clearly supports the need for a Bill of Rights)L. The government cannot abuse powers the Constitution hasn't given it.- Bill of Rights: NO (suggests that the Constitution alone is sufficient to prevent abuse)Final Answer:- Bill of Rights: YES: A, F, I, K- Bill of Rights: NO: C, G, H, L- Both: B, D, (possibly E and J, depending on interpretation)