A larger, more powerful government entity cannot possibly express the wishes of the people as effectively as state governments can. As opposing Federalists have stated, a strong, central power “[gives] to every citizen the same options, the same passions, and the same interests,” but this compromise invariably stifles the desires of some states for the benefits of others (The Federalist Papers: No. 10). It is inevitable that varying geographic aspects of each state has affected their interests. In particular, southern states have more incentives to protect their agricultural industry. As such, what rights do northern states have to decide what these southern states should do? The converse goes the same because only each state knows what is best for its people. As a result, the national government should have its powers as limited as possible. What Alexander Hamilton proposes in ensuring “that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones” is a falsehood (Hamilton's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank). Under no condition is the unwritten going to be as credible as what is actually in the Constitution. The powers explicitly stated in that document are the only powers the federal government can have. Should the influence of the national government be expanded to control the entire peoples of the …show more content…
Hamilton has once criticized them for their “animosity to the Christian system … demonstrated by the single fact of the ridiculous and impolitic establishment of the decades, with the evident object of supplanting the Christian Sabbath” (The Stand No. III). However, the mere fact of our differing practices is no excuse to not champion republicanism for all people. After all, it is democracy that we have longed for ourselves, and I trust mankind’s common sense to make the right decision to rule for themselves and to trust each other for their