Answer:
A bill of rights was not necessary
Step-by-step explanation:
The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention turned down the idea of including a list of citizens' rights in the Constitution because they believed that a bill of rights was not necessary. Many of the delegates believed that the Constitution itself provided sufficient protections for individual rights, and that a bill of rights would be redundant or even dangerous. Some argued that listing specific rights could be limiting and that including some but not all rights would give the impression that those not listed were not protected. Others feared that listing rights could imply that the federal government had powers beyond those specifically granted in the Constitution. Additionally, some delegates were concerned that if a bill of rights was included, it might lead to future attempts to add more rights or limit existing ones.
However, there was also significant opposition to the Constitution because of the lack of a bill of rights. Many anti-federalists argued that a bill of rights was essential to protect individual liberties and limit the power of the federal government. As a result, when the Constitution was ratified, several states included a call for a bill of rights as a condition for their approval. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791.