I am Jonathan Dayton, hailing from New Jersey, and I am a Federalist. I am here today at the Constitutional Convention to discuss the pros and cons of the our nation’s governing documents. I will be speaking in favor of a constitution rather than articles of confederation.
Speaking as a Federalist, I see some flaws in the Articles of the Confederation. One feature of the Articles of Confederation is that the power of voting would be in the hands of the people. Under the Articles, each state has one vote. So regardless of the population per state, be it 500,000 or 500, each still only has one vote. It also serves as an agreement among the states and is the first constitution of the United States of America, but it is incomplete. The concept of
…show more content…
One positive thing about it would be that a document like this leads to political stability by removing the national government from some controversial issue areas, giving states power in some areas, and will allow our new government to achieve and maintain stability. This would be starkly different from the English government where the decisions that affect the people were made by either the king or the church, and the people had no say at all. Another pro would be that it ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny. Even if one person or group took control of all three branches of the federal government, federalism ensures that state governments would still function independently. Federalism, therefore, fulfills the need of a governmental structure that ensures liberty, which was the colonists’ goal in the first place. One negative thing about the constitution is that it is a large undertaking, and will require modifications as our nation progresses. It also will be difficult to come to an agreement on so many of these