ipl-logo

Debate Between Hamilton Pros And Cons

1426 Words6 Pages

During the late 1700’s there was a great debate over how the country should be run. Also there was controversy over this new Constitution and how it would work. Two sides slowly emerged. The Federalists who believed in a federal system and this new constitution. Their opposition, the Anti-Federalist, believed in a weak central government and had plenty of issues with this new Constitution. The two clashed over many topics such as: the Judicial branch, a stringe union, and the executive powers. Federalist 78 and Brutus XI both discussed the topic of Section XII. This section was all about setting up the supreme court system. Alexander Hamilton, the writer of Federalist 78, believed that there were three objects that needed to be embraced. These …show more content…

Hamilton would have been proud. The branch has reviewed many laws and amendments as their job was; however, the controversy of ruling over things that he had not intended them to would have concerned him. Brutus would have been very upset. In his view he was right all along. The courts have overstepped the boundaries that he believed needed to be in place. Overall Hamilton had the best view on how the courts would slowly evolve. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists both argued on the topic of executive powers. They argued this topic in Federalist 67 and Cato V. The Federalists believed that the change was straying away from a monarchy. The Anti-Federalists thought that this kind of rule would lead to oppression and corruption. Federalist 67 contradicts one common problem that the Anti-Federalist had was the direct appointment of officers that were not needed. The Anti-Federalists had this belief that if the president wanted to that he could appoint officers if he wanted to. Part of Federalist 67 puts these speculations to rest. Hamilton , the author of Federalist 67, said that the president could only appoint officers if not specified by the Constitution. This refers to heads of government organizations. If the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation left then the president could send nominees to take up this position and they would be accepted or denied by congress (Federalist

Show More
Related
975 Words | 4 Pages

In the early 19th century, the United States of America was still just a young nation trying to find its way. Two parties emerged as competitors for the people’s votes and the opportunity to enact their view of how the young government should be handled. On opposing sides were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist philosophy of Hamilton was less trusting of the common man and more valid for the time period given the state of the United States in the early 19th century than the Anti-Federalist views, divisive actions, and philosophy of a strict constitutional interpretation of Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton authored a great many of The Federalist Papers of the late 18th century.

Read More
274 Words | 2 Pages

In the 1790s, before their presidencies, the views of Jefferson and Madison differed from those of Hamilton. Hamilton, a Federalist, supported a strong central government that could enforce the law and uphold the Constitution. (Doc B) Before

Read More
283 Words | 2 Pages

CPUSH Transcript: Plan for the National Government Debate Between Federalist and Anti-Federalist—Hamilton vs. Jefferson Alexis Orellana FRANKLIN: Alexander Hamilton as a federalist representative, please explain in a brief summary on why a national government would be more essential opposed to an anti-federalist's view on having a state government. HAMILTON: As a supporter of the constitution we insist on the constitutions balance of power between national and state. We believe that the division of powers and having the system of checks and balances would protect citizens rights from the oppressive rule from an organized power.

Read More
746 Words | 3 Pages

On the other hand, Hamilton was a loose constructionist, and believed that the Constitution could be interpreted by the reader. Hamilton and

Read More
1511 Words | 7 Pages

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…..

Read More
754 Words | 4 Pages

The first ideal made by Hamilton that affected the Democratic Republic government in the late 1800s was their power policies in the central government. Although the Democratic Republic’s beliefs included more power to the people rather than the government, during Jefferson’s presidency, the policy was affected by Hamilton’s policy, including the necessary and proper clause. For example, during the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson used Hamilton's elastic clause to expand the land and resources for trade. This was technically unconstitutional, as he didn’t go through congress first, but he used the clause created by Hamilton and his ideals for the betterment of his country. This is ironic though, because he later opposed Hamilton’s national bank in 1791, because of the unconstitutionality (Doc 1).

Read More
695 Words | 3 Pages

Hamilton/Jefferson Debate Project Part II Jefferson and Hamilton, they’re both great men of honor. It is, however, debatable that Hamilton is a more reasonable man than Jefferson. Hamilton had a better policy of regarding the role of the government. He had a more structured ideal for the nation than Jefferson. Hamilton thought more for the future, while Jefferson only thought of the common interests of the people.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

A example why Hamilton is a better view for america is because he wanted a strong federal government. And Thomas Jefferson Believed in a small government, he thinks

Read More
687 Words | 3 Pages

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was in shambles. Having left the rule of the British Crown, the States desired a government far from their previous predecessor. However, having given tremendous power to the states and very little to the federal, there was much chaos. A prime example of the failure of this document was Shay’s Rebellion, when farmers rebelled against government officials for debt that they could not repay due to faults in the Articles. Consequently, a new Constitution had to be ratified which resulted in many compromises between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.

Read More
1149 Words | 5 Pages

After the American Revolution, the formation of a new government was precedent. Federalists were afraid of disorder, anarchy, and chaos; the unchecked power of the masses, and sought for the constitution to create a government distant from popular passions. On the other hand, antifederalists were more concerned about the dangers of concentrated power. Equally, the antifederalists opposed the constitution because of the obstacles between the people and the exercised power, which is why federalists supported it. Hamilton was the Leader of the federalist party while Jefferson was the leader of the Republican party.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

Federalist Papers number 78 is written by Alexander Hamilton. It was also published under pseudonym Publius, which is just like other Federalist Papers. In this paper, Hamilton talked about the judiciary branch of the government. Among the three branches, judiciary is the weakest, not with the other two analogies. This department only has the power to judge what the Executive branch carry out.

Read More
338 Words | 2 Pages

Federalist No. 1 Analysis Alexander Hamilton was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was born on January 11th of 1755 or 1757 in Charlestown, Nevis and died July 12th, 1804. Hamilton is best known for his interpretations of the Constitution resulting in the Federalist Papers. He wrote this piece in order to address the conflicting views for the newly introduced Constitution; being the Federalists and anti-Federalists. This piece was written in 1788, after the Constitution was released, George Washington was elected as the first president and John Adams as vice president Hamilton is trying to convince readers that Federalists, those in favor of the states being united under one overarching government, were in the right and

Read More
385 Words | 2 Pages

Hamilton and the Federalists believed in having a central government that was fairly strong, and he did not consider the American people to be completely capable of ruling themselves. He also disapproved of state governments

Read More
159 Words | 1 Pages

In my opinion, I would prefer Alexander Hamilton's preference of Loose Interpretation of the Constitution for the very reason that society is forever changing, and with change, the constitution should be altered or amended in order to represent the time period. Because Loose Interpretation allows the government a greater role in shaping present and future events, it is important for Congress when creating laws, not put strict clauses or forbid certain Amendments of the Constitution. For example, the Second Amendment grants citizens the rights to bear arm. If the Constitution was under strict interpretation, that would mean anyone in U.S., including those with mental health disorders or criminal backgrounds the ability to purchase handguns.

Read More

More about Debate Between Hamilton Pros And Cons

Open Document