II. The proper meaning of federalism:

 Can sovereignty be divided between state and Federal  governments (Brutus) - or must one level dominate the other? (If  so, which level of government is the safer repository of ultimate  power?) 

 Can the powers of Federal government to achieve its most vital   ends (defense, domestic peace and prosperity) safely be limited by Constitutional restrictions (e.g., no internal taxation)?  If the powers to tax or raise an army, e.g., are left unlimited,   will not unlimited powers necessarily generate an unlimited expansion of the ends of Federal power (in turn producing further expansion of the powers themselves, and so on)? 

III. Utility of/ need for a Bill of Rights (see Fed. #84):

Antifederalists: needed as a reminder to people of what their rights are; not primarily intended for judicial enforcement. 

  Federalist: uselessness of "parchment barriers" to  usurpation; the Constitution itself (primarily through the  way it structures government via sep. of powers, checks/  balances) is the most effectual "Bill of Rights."  Moreover, specifying certain rights as protected would dangerously imply  that those not mentioned aren't guaranteed. (Antifederalist  response: then why does the Constitution already include such  guarantees as prohibitions on bills of attainder/ ex post facto  laws?) 

IV. Does the potential threat to liberty in a republic arise simply from the likely opposition of the interests of the governors to those of the governed - or is liberty potentially no less threatened by, hence needs to be protected against, depredations of   majorities of the people themselves? 

V. Judicial review: is allocating this power to Federal courts, without any ultimate superintendence by Congress or the states, inconsistent with popular government (Brutus) - or required by constitutional government (Fed. #78)?