When the Constitution was created, it was followed by a huge debate about the future of the United States and its structure. Eventually, these debates led to the creation of two opposing camps. On one side, there were federalist, while the other there were their opponents, anti-federalists. Basically, their arguments brought up the role of the national government and its role over the interest of local communities. As a matter of fact, federalists and anti-federalists had totally different views. The opposition initially brought up from the point of anti-federalists who argued that they could not change the Constitution which provided the legislative branches and national government with too much power and local communities had a decreased…show more content… Anti-federalists were also in-satisfied with the power of national legislative branches. To put it better terms they argued that the Congress, because of the ‘necessity and proper clause’ (Norton 1999), had too much power. What was totally unacceptable to anti-federalists was the lack of Bill of Rights which was viewed as a threat to the rights of the American population. This was particularly serious in the current historical situation when the American population had just gained their rights and, according to anti-federalist, were put under the threat of losing them. Nevertheless, federalists rejected all the arguments of anti-federalists and they underlined that even the lack of the Bill of Rights was not a threat to rights of Americans. They underlined that the separation of powers into three independent branches legislative, executive, and judicial would be a guarantee of balances for the rights of the American population since branches were supposed to control each other. They insisted that the of rights, in example, the Bill of Rights anti-federalists were hoping for, could be potentially very dangerous since they believed that it was impossible to list all the rights that could