Federalists believed that a bill of rights was

a. necessary because individual rights were not listed in the constitution

b. necessary because laws would not follow the declaration of independence

c. unnecessary because individual rights were listed in the declaration of independence

d. unnecessary due to the structure of government under the constitution

answer:

d. unnecessary due to the structure of government under the constitution

explanation:

federalists believed that a bill of rights was:

unnecessary due to the structure of government under the constitution

1. senate

2.there is no diagram

3.education

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.