Madison and the other framers realized that the role of the new Constitution was to define what is meant by "citizen" and "rights " strictly limit the power of government . spell out the natural rights of citizens . none of the above

The correct answer is "strictly limit the power of government."

Madison and the other framers realized that the role of the new Constitution was strictly limit the power of government.

During the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia Pennsylvania during the summer of 1787, Federalists, led by prominent Americans such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, supported the idea of a strong central government for the United States. On the other hand, Antifederalists such as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams did not support that way of thinking. They believed in a simpler form of government in which the citizens had natural rights.

The United States founding fathers had many differences during the Constitutional Convention but they were humble and smart enough to debate, listen to each other's arguments, and negotiate to allow the best interests of the country.

When trying to ratify the Constitution by the states, James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

states

explanation:

as the old saying goes, all politics are local. state and federal governments affect our daily lives in numerous ways. yet, in our federal system, there is supposed to be a balance between federal and state power. as james madison envisioned it in federalist no. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is