Madison was not convinced that it was really necessary or useful. He was concerned about the risk of listing well. What happens if it leaves out certain rights? Because they remain politically controversial. He has addressed the problem to some extent, what happens when you text the Bill of Rights? How do you come up with an adequate definition of what a right is? Indeed, we would never have obtained the ratification of the Constitution if the federalists had agreed, in the ratification conventions, to add a bill with rights in order to obtain anti-federalist votes in favour of ratification. This is a very important subject. Rappaport: [00:05:45] I agree with Jack. These are probably the two most important, the balance of power between nation and state and the size of governments in a republican system. As Jack said, there were many other topics that were important. An important topic is the Bill of Rights. The federalists, when they proposed the Constitution and advocated for its ratification, were opposed to a bill on rights.

The federal government`s first important role in defining environmental policy was the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 (the world`s first national park). However, it has done so on countries that consider indigenous tribes sacred, adding another source of dispute between the American Indians and the U.S. government (Yellowstone National Park Created on Sacred Land). One way of understanding it was before 1776, which set limits on the colonies, which put limits on these small republics, to behave badly, the English system and the English controls imposed. As soon as 1776 arrived and these states could act autonomously, they did not follow these optimistic assumptions of classical theory. What they are starting to do is very similar to what we see in Madison and other places, a kind of corrupt politics, interest groups, where people`s rights and property are not safe. There is another topic that Jack mentions: What kind of separation of powers do we want at the federal level? There is the anti-federalist view that, in a way, we might call a strict separation of powers. They wanted the legislature to have the dominant power. They made all the laws, and then the executive would enforce the laws and the justice system would decide them.