ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Anti Federlism

841 Words4 Pages

What goverment is trul best for this country? What govermetnt truly secrues the rights and libirtys of the people? Federlist or anti-federlsit? goverment more than anything else defines a country. is it to be succsesful or a failure, are the people to prosper or suffer? once you exiamin federlism and anti-federlism it becomes clear only one would lead to a successful country and that is federlism. Federlism is best for the country becuse it secures the rights of the people,provides a stable government and produces a fair system to create laws.

The first and foremost issue of government is to secure the rights of the people and federalism does this better than the opposition in a number of ways. By limiting the power of factions, providing …show more content…

In the case of america goverment must not choke out seed of a new country before it begins to plant its roots. Federlism not only provides stabilty but also provides the nesecary resose for america to grow by providing a central goverment with economic organization and legislative ability. Having a central government brings the states together into one country instead of the independent semi-countrys they were before to work for the best of the nation. With the strong supporting hand of central government states are less likely to succeed from the union and more likely to provide for and support the country to the best of the abilities of the state. The central government has three different branches each with limited power unique to the branch with the system of checks and balances no branch is able to breach past their bounds and leach power from another branch the power is disrtuped so that no branch has supreme athorty not only over the others but also over the country itself. The conistion of the federlist ,unlike that of the anti, allows for the central government to enact taxes . Taxes despite how unpleasant they might seem are a nesicary practice to provide for the common welfare of the people. Taxes allow for the militray which is needed to protect the citizens and thier rights, Taxes also provide for such things as roads which in common life are needed to fuction. Under the feds government the ability to regulate commerce would belong to the central govmernet. This is a neseity to limit the possiblity fo econmic choas . the third and final reason that the federlist system best provides for the stability and prosperity of the country is the way laws must be passed. The law is first drafted in one of the two houses of a branches called the house of reps , which is devided into congress and sente, once one of these

Show More
Related
756 Words | 4 Pages

Federalism prevented tyranny because neither the central government or the states had too much power. This is important because the power would be split between the two. For example, things that would happen in the state would be reserved for the state such as holding elections, establishing schools, and passing marriage and divorce laws. While on the other hand, powers given to the central

Read More
878 Words | 4 Pages

Matthew Wong Ms.Yuan History-Duke 12 October 2017 How the Constitution affects tyranny That could happen if the Constitution was not set in place to guard against tyranny. Tyranny occurs when the government has an absolute ruler who rules harshly. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not very powerful and lacked many laws needed leading to a decision to forward a new constitution. The Constitution set up different laws to split the power between different powers so that they would never be ruled by a tyrant once more.

Read More
703 Words | 3 Pages

Federalism guards against tyranny, so does the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each guard in different, unique ways. All of them do the same job to guard against tyranny. Federalism divides the government into the state and central governments. The division of powers gives each branch of government equal power, while checks and balances allows each branch to check each other.

Read More
500 Words | 2 Pages

This is evident in document A, where it shows you a Venn diagram of which powers are given to the states and which powers are given to the federal government. For one thing, this shows how “a double security arises to the rights of the people”, which means that when the power is distributed between the states and the federal government, neither is able to gain absolute power over the country. Federalism also comes in handy by specifying what the states get to control and what the national government gets to control, which is meant to prevent conflict between the two powers. For example, the task of declaring war is meant for the national government only. If that wasn’t specified, there would likely be a lot of cases where states declared war, and the national government had to clean up the mess.

Read More
882 Words | 4 Pages

“The accumulation of all powers… in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many… may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ”-James Madison. Fifty-five delegates, from the thirteen states, met in Philadelphia in May of 1787 to discuss and revise the Articles of Confederation. The chief executive and the representatives worked to create a frame for what is now our Constitution. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in four ways; Federalism that creates a State and Federal government, Separation of Powers that gives equal power to the three branches, Checks and Balances that create balance in the three branches by checking each other and being checked and the Small States vs the Big States ensures an equal voice for all states no matter what their size.

Read More
127 Words | 1 Pages

The argument between the Federalists and the Antifederalists principally centre on the Artivles of Confederation-Consitution. The Federalists and the Antifederalists have thier interpretions wheather the fedel government necessarliy exits or not. The Federalists believe that the relationship between fedel government and fifty states governments is stable and helpful. In contrast, the Antifederalists oppose this political struture and democratic goals, so that they think that the exitence of fedel government suppose to get corrupt. On the other hand, the Federalists and the Antifederalists also have different views about slaveries.

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

Read More
386 Words | 2 Pages

Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. 
On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.

Read More
463 Words | 2 Pages

First of all, Federalism in the constitution helps guard against tyranny. “The different governments will

Read More
818 Words | 4 Pages

The Framers of the Constitution had doubts about government operations and how governments worked. They were inclined to think the governments (kings) take away power from the people. However, they understood that some type of system was necessary for a nation to function. The Framers needed to make sure the government did not have complete control of the people. Creating Federalism in the United States allowed the government to set rules and standards for citizens while keeping checks and balances on their own powers.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.

Read More
659 Words | 3 Pages

In 1787 many important people, like Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock, had different views and beliefs on ratifying the Constitution. This lead to two groups forming the federalists and the anti federalists. The federalist believed that the Constitution should be ratified for the sake of a strong government, while the anti federalist believed that the Constitution should not be ratified because of the lack of individual rights. Specifically, the antifederalists point of view was more reasonable towards the public due to the fact the anti federalists wanted power within each state and not the central government. One reason why the anti federalist’s point of view is more sensible than the federalists is because the anti federalist thought

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalists were more educated while the Anti-Federalists were of poor families and less educated. They believed the Article of Confederation were ineffective. They believed the government should be strong and should protect the people. The Federalists favored the Constitution while the Anti-Federalists opposed it.

Read More
1823 Words | 8 Pages

The Government is the ultimate ruler of the people, sets the ultimate laws of the land and says what goes and when not pleased uses all the means in their power to influence. The basic functions of the United States government are listed in the Constitution. Due to the immense power of our federal government, people often argue that it is too powerful and should be lessened. Sub further the state governments use a sum of power to do the same. There has been an effort to shift power from the federal government to the states.

Read More
457 Words | 2 Pages

Federalist, and Anti-Federalist. The Federalist wanted a strong central government, while the Anti-Federalist were looking more for individual freedoms. Federalist believed that the best way to protect individual freedoms was to have a large republic, but Anti Federalist opposed. They believe that to protect our rights, we must have a small republic. Anti-Federalist concluded “competition between interest

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Anti Federlism

Related Topics

Open Document