More handpicked essays just for you.
Bill of rights and its importance
Bill of Rights and their application to present day society
The importance of the bill of rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Federalists wanted a strong national government to provide order and protect the rights of the people. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists, which included many patriots, such as Patrick Henry and John Hancock, opposed ratification because the Constitution shifted the balance of power
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.
This led the Anti-federalists to argue that the federal government should be limited to issues of national defense and interstate commerce and all other powers to the state. The Anti-federalists believed this plan granted the national government undue economic power over the states. Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. They saw no sense in throwing out the existing government.
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.
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).
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.
Before the famous Constitution became published on September 17, 1787, there was a huge democracy over it since some people supported it (federalists), while others opposed it (anti-federalists). Basically the main arguments used by the Anti-Federalists in the discussion of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Constitution offered too much power to the federal government and that the rights of the people were not promised through a Bill of Rights. In order to get their words out, they had ratified convections for the thirteen states. They choose to go to Pennsylvania first because of its size, influence, and wealth.
The most powerful objection raised by the Antifederalists, however, revolved around on the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. Most of the state constitutions of the era had built on the Virginia model that included an accurate protection of individual rights that could not be intruded upon by the state. This was seen as a central deserved fate of people's rights and was considered a major revolutionary improvement over the unwritten protections of the British constitution. The bill of rights was supported as an essential by anti-fed because in the original Constitution was seen as a real threat to individual citizens’ liberties. They believed that they didnt need to get rid of the articles of confederation but all they needed was to ammend it.
Anti- Federalists thought it was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. The Federalist just wanted laws to be loose and to be molded on the way. Compared to the Anti- Federalists who wanted a strict state government. The Bill of Rights were ratified by the constitution. There were 17 amendments, but the senate only approved 12, and only 10 were ratified
1. What are the primary differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in their views of federal authority? The Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government, which is the main reason behind why they were so opposed and critical of the Constitution and the Constitutional Settlement of 1788. They thought the Constitution gave too much power to federal government and feared that with the stronger, new federal government outlined in the Constitution, the states would be absorbed by the federal government.
The Anti-Federalist argued against the idea of a powerful national government, which would limit the powers of the state. One other key argument made by the Anti-Federalist emphasized the need for a bill of rights. Anti-Federalist feared that with the lack of a bill of rights, the Constitution would not
"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
Federalist and Anti-Federalists: The Debate that Shaped American History Following the turbulent period of the Revolutionary War, a young nation was officially born on the massive continent of North America. After years of indirect British rule, the colonies were left to completely govern themselves and were largely disconnected with no strong centralized government to unite the colonies. With the colonists preferring limited government such as governors with weak executive power, their animosity with an authoritative and aristocratic government was clear (Baker 9/29/15). This preference was reflected in the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation.
One major difference between both groups was that The Federalists supported the creation of a strong federal government, but the Antifederalists wanted more power for the states (Debate over Ratification of the United States Constitution). Moreover, the Antifederalists believed that the Constitution would limit the power of the people and give more power to the government. A second important difference between the two groups was that the Antifederalists demanded the inclusion of a bill of rights but the Federalists opposed the idea. The bill of rights was called for in order to protect the individual liberties of American citizens, which was not already included in the Constitution (The Constitution Webquest). Before being able to ratify the document, the writing of a bill of rights was
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
