Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Anti-Federalist's pros
Anti-Federalist's pros
Debate between federalist and anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Anti-Federalist's pros
Anti-Federalist's pros
Debate between federalist and anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Anti-Federalist's pros
The United States should adopt the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution provides many advantages and new opportunities. First, the Constitution gives more power to the national government in many ways. For example, under the Articles the national government had to ask the states for money, but under the Constitution the government is provided with money and the power to tax. In addition, the Articles allowed states to regulate trade causing each state to tax one another's products.
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…..
The Constitution came to fruition as an answer for the issues and numerous shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Not every person concurred with the Constitution or even the said issues emerging from the Articles of Confederation. These people were called Anti-Federalists and their thoughts would not be as effective as the thoughts of the Federalists, since Anti-Federalist thought's reflected numerous qualities of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution should have been endorsed with a specific end goal to conjure change and solvethe issues of the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists had the plans to make the country the best is could be, and also sufficiently giving rights to citizens.
The Articles of the Confederation was written in the beginning, because the citizens of America feared the government. The people wanted a new system that was organized and protected its people from Wars, attacks, and most importantly a stronger and reliable economy. In my opinion, there were more weaknesses than strengthens: 1. Congress lacked the power to collect taxes. 2.
The articles of confederation built the structure for what the United States calls the Government today. Before the constitution the Articles of Confederation played an extremely important factor in creating a unified country. The articles of conferation is an agreement between the 13 states it acted as a "firm league of friendship" for the states by providing an alliance. The Articles of Confederation proved the United States had a limited central government. This then led the founding fathers to agree that a new stronger constitution was necessary thus they ratified the constitution and addressed the need for a stronger central government.
The anti-federalists feared a strong government because it posed a threat to the people rights and that the president could be a king. I find that the federalist camp more appealing because they realized the weakness of the Confederation and tried to improve it such as the Judicial court system. There was no system of courts in the national government, the courts were dependent on the other states. This also made it that the states can ignore the national law without any consequences because the Congress has no way to enforce its own law. But the constitution helps the Congress to establish a national court system.
Before ratifying the Constitution, a constitutional convention was called in 1787 to change the Articles of Confederation. This meant that each state had only one vote in Congress, and the size didn’t matter. The debate was between the federalists and Anti-Federalist, one side wanted to ratify the constitution and the other side didn’t. It was not easy because there were documents and articles both supporting and going against it. Who are the federalists?
The Constitution of 1876 was not the first constitution Texas had declared for itself. It was actually the fifth. When Texas had been released from Mexico's rule in 1836 it hastily drafted a constitution to basically cover itself from from any attacks. It was rushed and therefore nine years later another was written just before the annexation. Then in 1866 Texas after another constitution was written to changes with the times, Texas was trying to rejoin the federal Union and was required to write another new constitution.
One last thing the constitution has that stopped tyranny rule was making sure the smaller states got a fair vote in congress compared to the bigger states. They had a meeting called the constitutional convention where they proposed two distinct plans. The first was the Virginia plan where they favored large states, and wanted it to be based off of population. The second one was the New jersey plan which favored small states, and gave each state an equal amount of votes. They eventually came up with the great compromise, where they proposed that congress would be composed of the senate, and the house of representatives.
The United States Constitution has created much debate since the moment it was conscripted. It has been argued that Constitution of the United States is a document that was drafted in response to the evolution of society. Others have argued that the creation of the Constitution was made as an effort to create a strong national government that was capable of exercising real authority and preservation of ideals in the revolution. The American Constitution is seen as being reactionary because the founders of the Constitution wanted to react to change in restoration of the previous state. The U.S. Constitution is considered reactionary because one should consider the events, documents, and people who participated in the era of the Constitution.
The Outcry The Constitutional Convention proved to solve the paradox of democracy because it created a strong government that balanced its powers equally. The “Great Compromise” is an example of how to address the minority rights and majority rule without resulting in anarchy or tyranny. The Government should use more compromises that will benefit both the minority and the majority equally. The Constitutional Convention took place because “the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak to govern its citizens” (History).
In the following paragraph, I will describe to you the different arguments that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had with ratifying the Constitution. Our Constitution should involve focusing on the common good and civic virtue of the people. There is no need for an overwhelming amount of power provided for the national government to where they make all of the decisions for us. A Bill of Rights would give us such things as the right to speak freely and make our own decisions that we, as a people, think is necessary for the common good. This writing will describe all of these points that support the Anti-Federalists and the reason to reject the new Constitution.
Us federalists believe that the Constitution is fine as is. The constitution does not need a Bill of Rights that will only limit the rights of people rather than protect them. We believe the constitution is required in order to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution gave us. Many influential figures also take our side in this situation such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, as well as James Madison. To go along with many of this nation’s leader supporting our point of view there are also many others that feel the same way.
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective
They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.