ipl-logo

Federalists Vs Federalism

939 Words4 Pages

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 …show more content…

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
886 Words | 4 Pages

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 by Robert Yates explains, “When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not just for us, but for everyone that comes after us. “ This relates the constitution to a building. Buildings are supposed to stand for ages, but without a sturdy foundation they will quickly be demolished. The constitution is not only designed for us, but also for our posterity so without a firm foundation, such as a bill of rights, it will quickly be abolished.

Read More
138 Words | 1 Pages

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

Read More
622 Words | 3 Pages

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.

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
386 Words | 2 Pages

Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. 
On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.

Read More
838 Words | 4 Pages

When the United States first gained their independence from Britain they needed to create a strong government for their colonies. The United States created their first government called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles came with many problems like no power to tax, no power to enforce the law, or regulate commerce. 10 years after having a weak government, they believed that a new type of government need to be created in order to become a strong government. They came up with the Constitution.

Read More
669 Words | 3 Pages

A federalist government is one with a Central government and many smaller state governments. This was an effective way to prevent tyranny because Central government still had power, but the States still could control their respective state. There is venn diagram in

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Read More
425 Words | 2 Pages

I would choose to be an Anti-Federalist because they did not loathe federalism, they just had felt the need to make some improvements. They had strived to put more power into the hands of the states. As the Anti-Federalists believes, I strongly agree with the constitution but I truly believe the bill of rights which was added later was very crucial to the U.S Constitution. The bill of rights has a big part in the citizen’s personal rights that people have all the time. I honestly can’t fathom what our country would be like if we did not have these rights being put into place.

Read More
214 Words | 1 Pages

“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.

Read More
932 Words | 4 Pages

Although critics claim that a mixing of powers will potentially lead to all the powers amassed in one branch, the subdivision of authority on two levels, state and federal, provides a double protection for the rights of the people. The unique characteristics of the American people make it perfect for self- government. The form of an extended republican government described by the U.S. Constitution will offer the best protection for the individual rights of citizens while having the power to work towards the common

Read More
368 Words | 2 Pages

The difference in philosophical beliefs of the Federalists and Antifederalists was immense. They two were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. The Federalists supported a large, centralized government. The Anti-Federalists supported a more local approach, putting the power in the state and city people. The Federalists were Pro constitution, a ratifying document for all people to follow.

Read More
1174 Words | 5 Pages

The first facet of modern government that the American Constitution formed is the idea of limited government. Limited government was sought after by the writers of the constitution due to the monarchy in which the original colonist descended from. The writers found that the best way to counteract the power found in governmental systems such as a monarchy or dictatorship is to play limitations on the government and place power in the hands of the people. A clear example of how the government is limited can be seen in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was originally created out of fear that the government may still even be to strong if actions were not taken to protect individual rights.

Read More
1784 Words | 8 Pages

The typical perception of Federalists and Jeffersonian-Republicans is one of absolute opposites: on the one hand, there are the Republicans, the champions of the common man; the Federalists, as the opposing party, are the suffocating faction. They were the party of strong government, this is certain, but this does not mean that they were advocating totalitarianism—nor did they seek to strangle the freedoms of Americans with stronger government, only model the new nation as they thought would be best; “stronger central government” was simply what they believed would be most suitable, just as Jeffersonians believed that a weaker central government would fit the States best. A common mistake made with Federalists and Republicans is viewing their

Read More
501 Words | 3 Pages

Their magna carta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation.” (Anti-Federalist No. 84) The opposite side, The Federalists, think that having a Bill of Rights is unnecessary and dangerous because according to them the people would take advantage of their rights and abuse of them. “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” (Federalists No. 84)

Read More

More about Federalists Vs Federalism

Related Topics

Open Document