How did the arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reflect their points of view regarding natural rights republicanism and constitutionalism?

The federalist are those who favored a stronger national government due to their fear caused by the weak Articles of Confederation. Therefore, they were more loose constructionist meaning that they took the Words of the constitution loosely so that the federal government has more opportunity. The anti-federalist were strong believers in natural rights and the rights of the states to determine what they wanted because each state was extremely different. Anti-federalist still had a bad taste in their mouth from the American Revolution and feared that a strong federal government would turn into a monarchy. Therefore, the anti-federalist pushed for the Bill of Rights which helped the people keep some of their power. Americans had recently fought a war to secure their fundamental rights. The anti-federalist did not want a constitution that put those rights in jeopardy. They also were strict constructionist meaning that they interpreted the constitution Word by Word. The anti-federalist refused to sign the constitution until there was a promise of the bill of rights.

Many Founding Fathers were influenced by Locke, his natural rights philosophy of inalienable rights: life, liberty, property regardless of wealth, social status or birth. If government failed to protect those rights the people had the rights to rebel and replace it.