ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast The Bill Of Rights Of Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists

505 Words3 Pages

In 1775, the Revolutionary War between Americans and Britain started. The reason why colonies decided to get independence was colonists did not want to be under the oppression of British anymore. They were angry when British imposed taxes on them because they felt that British ignored their rights. They had an effort to self rule from government in political ways, but it was no use changing their situation. They had disappointment to Britain, and recognized that it was not possible to be free within the British system. So, to have the power to control their own government, the colonists determined to separate from Britain. Then, on 1776, thirteen colonies declared independence and the United States was created.
In the early period in shaping the United States, Federalists who wanted a strong central government and Anti-federalists who wanted a strong state government had conflict. It was because Anti-federalists wanted to include bill of rights in Constitution while federalists did not agree. "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."1 This is said by Thomas Jefferson. This quote is the best to show why Anti-federalists wanted a bill of rights. They expected it could …show more content…

It helped in making good advantages for the country. Americans became free people who had divine rights under the government unlike the time when they were only the subjects under the control of ruler. They could express their opinion because they are free to say what is in their minds. Furthermore, a bill of rights limited the power of monarchs. Monarchs could not use their powers arbitrarily if that were not allowed by Parliament such as enforcing laws and imposing taxes. Under the bill of rights, monarchs were not able to impose punishments in cruel ways on the citizens without

Show More
Related
1006 Words | 5 Pages

Articles of Confederation America was suffering from its debts and had trouble competing economically. The articles of confederation already limited what the Congress could do. Most of the powers were given to the states and limited what the Congress was able to do. Each state had its own goal and policies on imports and exports that made each state very different making it more difficult to regulate trade. The only place that the Congress could regulate trade was the natives, and when the Congress wants to trade with foreign countries they can’t because Congress didn’t have any negotiation trade agreements due to the limitation of the articles of confederation.

Read More
1041 Words | 5 Pages

5. Compare and contrast the views of the Federalists, early Republicans (Jeffersonians), Whigs and Democrats (Jacksonians) on a.) the powers of the federal government relative to the states b.) the powers of the president relative to Congress. a.) STATES Federalists believed liberty was more secure in large republics, where government was more distant from the passions of the people and factions were larger yet weaker as a whole. They believed a bill of rights was unnecessary or even dangerous (could be construed as a finite list of rights).

Read More
543 Words | 3 Pages

They believed that no bill of rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people. The only reason the Anti-Federalists agreed to help approve the constitution was because of the bill of rights and without the bill of rights the constitution would not have been approved. As it states in the book, “It was largely at Anti-Federalist Insistence that a bill of rights was included in the Constitution” (Sinopoli 33). They want the people to be heard and not

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

Moreover, anti-federalist were also dissatisfied with the power of national legislative organs. To put it more precisely, they argued that the Congress, because of the ‘necessity and proper clause’ (Norton 1999), wielded too much power. However, what was totally unacceptable to anti-federalists was the lack of Bill of Rights which was viewed as a potential threat to the rights of Americans.

Read More
903 Words | 4 Pages

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787-1788, there were two fundamental ideological camps attempting to push their plan for the new government. They were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists incorporated the basic chronicled names like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington. The Anti-Federalists did not have the same number of respectable names in their camp; Thomas Jefferson was the significant advocate of Anti-Federalist strategy in early America. Each side had diverse methodologies for the new government.

Read More
600 Words | 3 Pages

Many times anti-federalist are given a misconception, they are portrayed as self-serving, nefarious, and unpatriotic trash of history. Really, many of the most visible Anti-Federalist were highly respected individuals who fought in the revolutionary war, signed the Deceleration of Independence, and were political strongholds in their own states. Some of these men were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and future president James Monroe. The opposing side consisted of men like Alexander hamilton, James Madison and George Washington.

Read More
490 Words | 2 Pages

As others are the federalist, I’d be an anti-federalism. According to fact that they didn’t hate to support federalism. All they wanted to make more improvement. They worked so that the states would have more power. They didn’t want any secrets.

Read More
1480 Words | 6 Pages

Federalists (Pro-Constitution) and Anti-Federalists (Anti-Constitution) were two groups that emerged and had a huge impact on the issue regarding the Constitution (61). My thesis is that the Constitution was able to bring both of the groups concerns together and offer a solution, which would eventually change the future of the 13 colonies. Problems began to arise for some in Great Britain. There were 13 colonies that were heavily impacted. They became angry.

Read More
641 Words | 3 Pages

In December of 1787, the first state had ratified the Constitution. Causing not only the adoption of the Constitution, but also the division of the people in states into two separate groups; the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists being the ones who supported the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who did not support the Constitution. Although there were those who did not approve of the Constitution, today, the document is the entire framework for our government and our laws. The Federalists, those who supported a "federal" system of state governments guided by a strong national government.

Read More
736 Words | 3 Pages

The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts and took power from the states, depriving citizens of liberties. The Federalist believed that "The smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). The Anti-Federalist wanted a national representation large enough to secure a substantial representation of the middle class, but not a very large one. They did not want a large national representation because they believed it may derive liberties from local state representatives.

Read More
603 Words | 3 Pages

The American Revolution, a war fought against a distant and all too powerful government, instilled a fear of centralized governmental power in the United States. The idea of the U.S. constitution sparked a political divide; it encouraged heated debates from those who are known as Federalists, and those who are known as Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, individuals who supported the ratification of the constitution, argued that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and that a strong national government with checks and balances was needed. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that the president would be like a king and that there needs to be a Bill of Rights to protect the people. If I had been alive in the time of this intense debate, I would have voted for the federalist side of the argument.

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

This meant that the king no longer had full and absolute power, and the courts were given more authority. (7) The English Bill of Rights was just as important as the Magna Carta because it gave citizens rights that weren 't listed in the Magna Carta. The English Bill of Rights also stopped the monarchs from preventing Protestants from bearing arms, created a standard army and stopped them from imposing fines or punishments without trial. Monarchs could not impose cruel unusual punishments on the citizens or give them excessive bail.

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states. "to raise and support armies at pleasure, in addition in peace as in war, and their management over the militia, tend not solely to a consolidation of the govt. , however the destruction of liberty..." a stronger central government would higher shield everybody and is additional for the good

Read More
1105 Words | 5 Pages

The Bill of Rights further stripped the monarch of power by guaranteeing a parliament that is elected, free speech, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, and enforcing a representative

Read More
156 Words | 1 Pages

The English Bill of Rights was drafted in 1689 to act as, first, a list of grievances against the Crown and then the declaration of the entitlements and protections for the people of England. The promised rights include the ability to petition the sovereign, to keep arms for defense, and to be protected against excessive bail and unusual punishments. Furthermore, it helped to create the Constitutional Monarchy Britain has today by making law the ruler over the king. Also, parliament was given more power and freedom in their governance, which furthered the checks on the authority of the monarch.

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast The Bill Of Rights Of Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists

Related Topics

Open Document