ipl-logo

Anti Federalist Paper No. 67 Analysis

886 Words4 Pages

Due to money shortage, farmers from Massachusetts were unable to pay their taxes and debts, thus, leading to a rebellion by Daniel Shay. The farmers then attacked the nation's arsenal. As a result, congress realized they were too weak to stop them and they were shocked into calling a convention where they would later make a new constitution. Naturally, the idea of a new constitution sparked a clash of ideas between the anti-federalists and federalists with a debate on whether or not this new constitution should be ratified. Though, I believe, the people of the United States should not ratify the Constitution because it gives the opportunity and time for the president to seize power and establish tyranny over our beloved country. In addition, …show more content…

In Anti-Federalist Paper No. 67 by George Clinton, the author states, “And how is the president any different from the king of Great Britain?... these powers, in both president and king, are basically the same.” The author uses a rhetorical question to spark ideas of the president’s and king’s powers. Eventually, the king will rule like a monarchy as they share almost the exact same powers. For this purpose, what was the point of leaving Britain if we're only going to elect a president with the same powers that we escaped from? Clinton then states, “when an office has a lot of power, then the term of that office should be short to balance out that power, and that a term longer time than a year would be dangerous.” This illustrates the president's term and powers as if on a scale. With so much power the president's term should be no longer than a year to balance out that scale. Ultimately, it is important to limit the powers of the executive branch so it does not become a form of monarchy. Not only will the president's long term take away the people's power and establish complete tyranny over our country, but without a bill of rights they will not be protected from abuses of the federal …show more content…

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 by Robert Yates explains, “When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not just for us, but for everyone that comes after us.“ This relates the constitution to a building. Buildings are supposed to stand for ages, but without a sturdy foundation they will quickly be demolished. The constitution is not only designed for us, but also for our posterity so without a firm foundation, such as a bill of rights, it will quickly be abolished. A bill of rights is necessary to hold up the constitution and the people's rights as it will be used in future generations. Yates then goes on to explain, “It's not true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the federal Constitution than in the State constitutions...being the most recent will replace every other agreement that went before it. Since it's a plan of government ratified by the people, it will be superior to all other governments that went before it.“ Being more recent than any other agreement, the federal constitution will replace all other agreements in use before it, making it even more important to establish a bill of rights. It is important to design a bill of rights in our current constitution, seeing as it will replace

Show More
Related
136 Words | 1 Pages

In 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers were written and published in various newspapers in the state of New York intended to encourage Yorkers to vote in ratifying the proposed Constitution. The famous papers consist of eighty-five essays authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. In Federalist Paper No. 17, Alexander Hamilton explicitly addresses the fear that the proposed Constitution would lead to oppression at the hands of an “autocratic” national government. Hamilton argues that even if the national government were to try and seize the power of the states, it would not be simple to do. The main reason Hamilton gives that the States rights would be reserved is because these government have a greater influence over

Read More
1289 Words | 6 Pages

Hamilton stresses the importance of balanced power, as well as the involvement of all branches in both local and national agendas (Gais). Hamilton wants to make clear that democracy is completely different than a monarchy in the fact that the president, who is chosen by the people, will never become some type of superior human. The United States is one of the first nations to practice democracy, so there was no country to look towards as a model. This made Hamilton’s job difficult because he had to encourage Americans to trust the process of building a great nation. The other part of Federalist 67 comments about the president’s ability to appoint officials to vacancies in the government.

Read More
392 Words | 2 Pages

I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.

Read More
1064 Words | 5 Pages

In addition,

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

Read More
1024 Words | 5 Pages

Federalists argued that “energy in the executive is the first prerequisite of good government” as it needed power to enforce laws, and provide protection against attacks. Having one executive serve for four years avoided conflict between two or more leaders of equal power, allowing the president to “act quickly when necessary for the common defense to preserve the public peace and in international relations.” The four year term helps the president “resist momentary impulses and act on the basis of the long-term calculations of the public good.” Federalists also believed the executive should be elected by an electoral college. This would solve the dispute between those who wanted to use the popular vote and those who wanted to use state legislatures to choose.

Read More
639 Words | 3 Pages

The country has no national defense and no money. The constitution has many progressive concepts that could change the future of the United States. One reason that anti-federalists oppose ratifying the constitution is because they feel like the constitution gives too much power to the congress. Anti-federalists believe that giving too much power to the government would result in something similar to British monarchy.

Read More
1100 Words | 5 Pages

They believed it was essential that individual rights were explicitly stated so that citizens were informed and could defend their own liberty (Cornell, 2012). The Federalists initially believed that a Bill of Rights was not necessary, as the states retained any rights and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. Seeking to get the Constitution ratified, the Federalists agreed to write a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights Institute, a non-profit foundation that aims to educate students, explains: The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech.

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Read More
739 Words | 3 Pages

The U.S. Constitution was meant to replaced the Articles of Confederation and provide the people with an insight on all of the rights and for the government to abide by them. However, there were people that did not want the Constitution ratified and there were some who did. The ones who opposed the ratification of the Constitution were referred to as the Antifederalists. They feared that with a strong government, the federal government would have too much power in their hands and would do as they pleased. The Federalists, the ones who supported the Constitution, disagreed with the Anti-Federalists and stated that with a strong federal government, the United States would eventually evolve into a better country in the future.

Read More
1203 Words | 5 Pages

The Articles stood as an extremely loose set of regulations, that although did not take rights away from the people, granted an individual the power to do anything he pleased. This type of ‘government’ is akin to a parental figure who has hired another person to preside over their children without telling them any rules or regulations the children have to abide by. To the children, the citizens, it is amusing to be able to do anything they please, unfortunately this creates chaos within the house, the country. James Madison refers to preserving the right and liberties of the people in “The Federalist No. 51” when he discusses the fact that the Constitution will make it law for the branches of government to be separate but will be granted the ability to check in on one other to preserve the public rights. It is not exactly known how the constitution will be worded, but with the constant asking of a “Bill of Rights” the framers are likely to succumb to the needs of the public and add the section in the

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

1787 was a time of change for government, and everyone had an opinion for how things should be ran. When James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, Number 10 was about parties in government, or as he called them, “factions”. Madison says that an advantage of a “well constructed Union” would be the ability to “break and control the violence of faction”, yet he goes on to say that you cannot remove factions without removing liberty, and that will never happen. He said the only option was to try and control faction’s effects. In paragraph 8, he says that “the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail”; in other words, the most popular party with the majority of people and influence is expected to prevail over the minority party.

Read More
866 Words | 4 Pages

But the funny thing is that the Anti-Federalists insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. With the Bill of Rights, come amendments Amendments are what make our Constitution modern. Our Bill of Rights

Read More
678 Words | 3 Pages

The Anti-Federalists make it evident that protecting the individual rights one of the most important topics in the debate, which is why they should receive the most support. In the Anti-Federalist papers, New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and Despotism, it states, “If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable—a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact”. This quote makes it evident that with this new constitution that with be put into effect will have the people give up some of their natural rights just so they can protect their remaining rights. The Anti-Federalists make it their goal to protect all of the peoples rights, which should be the final and only argument to why the Federalists should not be

Read More
957 Words | 4 Pages

The Founding Fathers wanted a unilateral executive power meaning they wanted one person in charge of the executive branch. “Single executive would a source of ‘energy’” and “single executive was indispensable to controlling executive power” (Milkis and Nelson, 2016). The Founding Fathers found it important that one person should be in charge because one person is able to make decisions quicker rather than having a group of people debate and take more time. “The President speaks for the United States in the international

Read More

More about Anti Federalist Paper No. 67 Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document