ipl-logo

Differences And Similarities Between The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

1637 Words7 Pages

Both the federalists and the anti-federalists had much to say in regards to the executive office. While it is comforting that they found common ground in regards to the electoral college being an excellent mode of electing the executive, they disagreed fundamentally in the design of the executive. For the purpose of this paper, I will first discuss the Federalists arguments for the executive and the types of power the executive needs to possess. I will then discuss the Anti-Federalists disagreements towards the Federalists claims. I will then conclude with whom I think has the most convincing argument and why. The Federalists argued that the executive would not be a monarch like the king of England as the Anti-Federalists believed. The …show more content…

The Anti-Federalists were too trepid in their allocation of power. Under an Anti-Federalists executive, there would be largely no power held by the executive. However, evidenced by The Articles of Confederation there is a necessity for a strong executive who can execute the laws forcefully. The Anti-Federalists believed in weakening the executive as much as possible. However, many of their methods are not viable options. For instance, they believed in a multiple executive or an executive council, which is nice in theory, but in practice, we need an executive that is firm and makes decisions. Also, it is much easier to attribute responsibility to one person rather than to a council or multiple executives. It is very important that the executive should be held accountable if there are massive mistakes. Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists argued for term limits, however, term limits only serve to hamper an executive’s abilities and applies less responsibility to the executive. An executive that is subject to term limits will be less likely to pursue long-term policy and will be less likely to pursue the public good. Reelection is an incentive, people are driven by incentives, if we want our executive to work well we should provide them with incentives. Further, no matter if there are term limits or not, all partisans with an ideology will seek to fill appointments and offices with others of the same

Show More
Related
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
744 Words | 3 Pages

(This goes before the main argument) The main Argument between the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist was about the amount of control/authority that the government should have. Though the people were now the governing body there was not much protection and liberties that they were entitled to. James Madison did not want to risk the constitution not being ratified; he drafted the Bill of Rights. Even though the Anti-Federalist Failed to prevent the ratification of the U.S. Constitution led to what we know as the Bill of Rights, the ten amendments that protected the

Read More
156 Words | 1 Pages

Anti-Federalists in the late 1780s strongly objected to the amount of authority given to the government by the constitution, and had an unorganized but large effort to prevent its ratification. The Anti-Federalists believed that liberty could only be upheld if the federal government remained small and uninvolved with local matters in the states. Congress, with the power to make laws deemed necessary and proper, has no firm limitations under the constitution. Anti-Federalists thought that each state should control itself, with minimal interference by Congress or the national government. The purpose of becoming independent of England was because the King was not sympathetic to struggles in the Americas, and under this new constitution, the executive

Read More
900 Words | 4 Pages

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.

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
705 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
540 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the anti-federalist wanted the legislative branch to have more power over among the three branches. Increasing the legislative branch power will increase the state power in the government. Favoring the anti-federalist idea of a strong state ruling government. In addition, the constitution favor a position in the executive branch, the president. The anti-federalist were against the president because it is similar to a king in a monarch.

Read More
687 Words | 3 Pages

Primarily, individuals such as Andrew Hamilton and James Madison, Federalists, believed in a stronger central government whereas others such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Anti-Federalists, were for larger state government. Federalists were typically untrusting of citizens and the American people, and felt that the more educated individuals involved in government would govern. In contrast, individuals such as Henry and Jefferson believed that government was for the people, and should be given to the people to handle. In today’s standards, the Federalist views typically align with those of the Democratic platform while those with Anti-Federalist views align with those of the Republican

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
736 Words | 3 Pages

Under the guidance of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, Federalists became a popular political party at the end of George Washington’s term. As a proud Federalists in the United States under Washington, a numerous amount of hypocrisy has consumed the population on, “What were Federalists’ views?” A Federalist strongly believed in the power of the national/central government because it would have yielded stability to the country. Instead of a democracy or popular sovereignty, an “aristocratic leader,” would have best led the nation (History in the Making- Chapter 10).

Read More
581 Words | 3 Pages

In other words, the Constitution, written by educated, rich men, would grant more power to those already in a high position. To add to this, the anti-Federalists stated that Constitution was not secure enough to uphold citizens’ rights. The Constitution would be responsible for the endangerments of human rights such as trial by jury and liberty of the press. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they thought it was an unfitting solution, which would lead the U.S. down the same path of injustice as Great Britain

Read More
214 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
1360 Words | 6 Pages

The birth of the United States of America began with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration set the standard of justice for which the country would move towards overtime. The Declaration also provided guidance for the constitution. One of the major themes that demonstrates this connection is the institutional design of the executive. This is greatly evidenced through the grievances stated in the Declaration and it’s clear that these greatly influenced the design of the executive in the constitution starting with the term limit, and overall structure of the the executive branch.

Read More
490 Words | 2 Pages

The objects of jurisdiction… are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail. " My opinion on anti-federalist is that they want to have strong, separate state governments, rather than a strong centralized government. They added the Bill Of Rights to protect people's right and to protect citizens against government. They wanted improvement they wanted the right things for citizens and that’s why they took their time to ratify the

Read More
651 Words | 3 Pages

After the American Revolutionary War, many Americans were opposed to the idea of a strong central government. They saw the idea of a strong centralized government as a gateway back into the familiar tyrannical government and abuse of power that they had just fought so hard to free themselves of. The idea of creating a new Constitution was unnecessary to some because the Articles of Confederation were already in place. The non-supporters of the newly proposed Constitution called themselves “Anti- Federalist.” Naturally, many of the supporters of the new Constitution felt that it was very much needed and they felt as if the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to functionally run the government.

Read More

More about Differences And Similarities Between The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

Open Document