A) the establishment of checks and balances INCORRECT Checks and balances are a fundamental aspect of the Constitution that was widely supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, though they debated the specifics. The author of the excerpt, likely a Federalist, would not view checks and balances as pointless; rather, they saw it as a key mechanism to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This system, which includes the presidential veto, congressional override, and judicial review, was designed to ensure cooperation and limit government overreach. The question specifically asks about an aspect seen as almost pointless, and checks and balances were considered essential, not pointless.
B) the existence of a national court system INCORRECT The establishment of a national court system was a crucial part of the Constitution, as it provided a mechanism for interpreting laws and resolving disputes. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78 that an independent judiciary was essential to protect the Constitution and individual rights. While Anti-Federalists had concerns about the power of federal courts, they did not view the court system itself as pointless. The author of the excerpt would not dismiss the judiciary, as it was a key component of the proposed government's structure.
C) the creation of a strong chief executive INCORRECT The creation of a strong chief executive was a major point of debate during the Constitutional Convention, with some fearing it would lead to monarchy. However, the Constitution's framers ultimately agreed on a single executive with limited powers, as outlined in Article II. Federalists defended the executive as necessary for energy and efficiency in government, while Anti-Federalists worried about potential tyranny. The author of the excerpt, if a Federalist, would not view the executive as pointless; rather, they saw it as a vital component of a functioning government.
D) the inclusion of a bill of rights CORRECT In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary but also dangerous. He contended that the Constitution itself was a bill of rights because it enumerated the specific powers of the federal government, and since the government could only exercise those powers, it could not infringe on rights not mentioned. Hamilton further argued that listing certain rights might imply that the government had authority over all other matters, which could lead to an expansion of federal power. This view was in direct opposition to the Anti-Federalists, who insisted that a bill of rights was essential to protect individual liberties. The excerpt likely reflects this Federalist perspective, making D the correct answer.
