Federalists Vs Federalism

Federalists or Anti-federalists are both fair sides, and each side has an arguable amount of supporters. I am an Anti-federalist, or someone who opposes the Constitution. Moreover, we believe that the Constitution takes too much power away from the people. The Federalists on the other hand are those who support the Constitution. They link themselves with the idea of federalism, and federalism is when power is divided and shared between a central government and local governments. In addition, the Constitution gives the national government too much power, it doesn’t provide for a republican government, and in the end, it doesn't provide a Bill of Rights which is vital.
In the same fashion, the Constitution gives the national government too much

The reason why the Constitution does not provide for this type of government is because republican governments had only worked in small communities. From New Hampshire to Georgia, we can certainly tell that it is not a small area and it is quite the opposite. Again, since a republican government is worked in a small area or community, people had similar wealth and the same values. The new nation would be large and very diverse, and they wouldn’t be able to agree on their common welfare. This includes a gap in the rich and poor, including those who are middle class. Usually those who were in the middle class were more likely to have civic virtue. Furthermore, a free government would require participation of the people. SInce the national government is located far from where most live, people will be unable to participate. The only way to rule would be to rule with a military force as stated before, which will result in a tyranny. Nonetheless, the Federalists would counteract and utter that the national government wouldn’t become a tyranny because of the checks and balances, including the separation of powers. They only talk about protecting rights and the limits on the government but they forget to realise the distances and activity of participation of the people, which is

It is absolutely necessary because it’ll help protect people against the power of the national government. In fact, if there is no limit to what the government can and can’t do, it is safe to say that they could also possibly abuse the people’s rights, taking away our freedom, liberty, etc. As a matter of fact, if we do have a Bill of Rights, it sets limits in place and provides the people’s protection from being exploited by a simple weakness. Similarly, there’s also no mention of freedom of religion, speech, or press. Since these freedoms aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, the government is allowed to exercise authority over these freedoms. Could you imagine that your state is announced to only believe in a certain religion, or that the government has announced everyone must follow only a certain religion? What would we do then? The only answer would be to rebel or to follow the laws of the government and we just only recently fought in battles to secure our rights. I am utterly confident that no one would want a Constitution that would jeopardize their rights. Even so, the Federalists have the impression that the Bill of Rights isn't needed, and that the government has only a limited amount of power to do certain things. These certain things play important factors, even if it is little. Although they say they have a