What was the federalists’ argument for not adding a separate bill of rights to the constitution? it might be used later to limit rights that weren’t originally listed. it was unnecessary because everyone had been granted basic freedoms. it was unnecessary because the new government had limited power. it might be used later to free enslaved people in the west.

It might be used later to limit rights that weren't originally listed, is one of the arguments that could be held from either Federalist or Anti-Federalist. The fear being that if the constitution says you have 'these' rights, then the rights it doesn't state can be exploited. Another view is that if the rights were clearly stated, they can be legislated out of existence. Such is the case today.

It should also be stated this was not a popular view among Federalist, this was a popular view among Anti-Federalist.

"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

answer: the third option is your answer

explanation: