Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
A feiry debate anti-federalist
A feiry debate anti-federalist
A feiry debate anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A feiry debate anti-federalist
A feiry debate anti-federalist
A feiry debate anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A feiry debate anti-federalist
Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..
In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.
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.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.
They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people. The
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.
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.
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
When our founding fathers first created the Constitution it was found unworkable and had to have some changes before the ratification. In that process people began to have some differences such as the Federalist saw that the enhanced Constitution alone would protect all basic human rights. While Antifederalist saw that we needed an extra addition to the document that would genuinely give the basic rights, liberties, and limit the government from denouncing these rights and liberties from the people. The Bill of Rights was a necessary addition that has and will continue to protect the people from injustice in the government with the help of the Supreme Court.
There was a division among the people as to whether or not individual rights should be included in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist did not want a strong centralized government. Others wanted the guarantee of a written document that protected the freedoms they had fought so hard to earn. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the right citizens believed belonged to them.
The Anti-Federalists were correct that a Bill of Rights was necessary to guard citizens from tyranny. To begin with, the Constitution is the framework for the organization of the U.S government and for the relationship the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the nation. When the United States was being born, the Founders adopted the first constitution to the nation called, Article of Confederation which created a central government that did not have much power and most of the power were given to the state government. However, the Article of Confederation was not working because there was no chief executive, no court system, and most important that was the central government could not force a state to pay taxes.
Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.
After the Constitution was sent to states for ratification, the people felt the Constitution did not protect the natural rights of the American citizens. The cause or reason for this addition to the Constitution was to ensure that the rights detailed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not thought to be the only possible rights of American citizens. The Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, said that if certain rights weren't specifically granted to the people, the government would easily take over these rights and abuse the people in the country. The Federalists, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, said that the Constitution give the government to do things that were
Apparently the Anti-Federalists thought that with the Constitution, they wouldn’t have any individual liberties. Unfortunately the Federalists didn’t see the problem with the Constitution. This is where compromise comes in. After the Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed their ideas, each side gave up something they wanted in order to get something they did want. Finally after a long, long discussion both sides agreed on the amendments for the Bill of Rights.
The government today is based off a document written over 200 years ago called the Constitution. This document helped form the government and country we live in today.. The United States Constitution is still relevant today because it formed the way this great nation would be run, from checks and balances, separation of powers and the rule of law structuring the way the government will function. At the end of the American Revolution the founding fathers wrote and signed a document called the Declaration of Independence. This document was written to tell the sovereignty of great britain that they will not be under his rule.