ipl-logo

The Anti-Federalists: Competition Between Interest Groups

522 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Anti federalists in the colonies

The Anti-Federalists believed competition between interest groups would make governing impossible and could lead to anarchy. However, historical evidence shows the Anti-Federalists were clearly wrong. Although interesting groups may invade others’ rights, they are good because no one voice should rule and having them allows government to address various needs of the people, as long as laws are put in place to control them. Factions are good, because no one voice should have all the power and people should have freedom to express their opinions on government policy. The Anti-Federalists were afraid different view points would cause government to stop functioning properly and to lose power. We may not always agree with the opinions or methods of factions, but giving citizens that freedom allows for greater diversity and insight to our nation. People should have options instead of just blindly following the government without having any say. The opinions and ideas of the people as a whole are what guides America. Interest groups can express their thoughts, as long as they are under control and not dominant, governing is still possible. …show more content…

In the BYU library, there is now a self checkout option instead of going to the front desk, because students raised their voice, and BYUSA listened. This is a reflection of democracy, by listening to groups, government gather many opinions to inform legislation. They form laws based on the people. Interest groups are a way for government to get feedback from their policies, because it gives them a new perspective to look at their performance. This helps government to be more aware of the economic and social changes in the society. People are pleased when their voices are heard, because they feel government recognized their

Show More
Related

Analysis Of The Anti-Federalists Were Right By Gary Galles

265 Words | 2 Pages

The article, “The Anti-federalists Were Right”, from Mises Daily, by Gary Galles, written on Sept. 27, 2006, is about the accuracy of the outcome of the Constitution that the anti-federalists had foretold. The anti-federalists did not approve the U.S. Constitution. They feared that it would form a tyrannical central government, even though the supporters of the Constitution guaranteed that a government like that would never be created. Anti-federalists informed Americans that the Constitution would affect our freedom and the money we own. They wanted to establish the Bill of Rights to form a boundary between the rights of the people and the government.

Read More

Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

189 Words | 1 Pages

On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority.

Read More

Federalist 10 Dbq

243 Words | 1 Pages

Perhaps the most famous Federalist paper, Federalist 10, starts off by saying that one of the biggest arguments that favors the Constitution is that it creates a government suited to minimize the harm caused by factions. Faction, in this case, is defined as a group of people whether a minority or majority based on class, race, and profession that all share a common interest. It was inevitable that factions would occur and perhaps the defining characteristic was the unequal distribution of property. This would ultimately lead the poor without property to become the majority in a “tyranny of the masses.” Madison believed that there were two solutions in preventing majority factions, 1) Remover the causes, and 2) Control the effects.

Read More

Federalist 10 Summary

679 Words | 3 Pages

Madison begins Federalist 10 by stating that a well-functioning government should be able to prevent and control factions and their effects. A faction is any group of people who hold a shared interest and whose common interest either hinders the rights of others in society or harms society as a whole. Although factions cause confusion and violence to occur in a society, no government will be able to stop factions from developing; Madison states that this is because, in order to destroy factions, one would need to destroy liberty. Along with not being able to abolish factions, Madison asserts that it is impractical to try to control factions because individuals will always have differing opinions; he also articulates that the main purpose of governments is to protect

Read More

Ratification Of The Constitution Dbq Essay

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

Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

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

Tyranny Dbq Essay

797 Words | 4 Pages

What if there was a government that has one ruler making many unjust laws. For example, if someone was put into prison for years for only doing one small crime. Or maybe, if a particular religion or race did not have the same rights as others. This took place in the 1700s in an act called tyranny, or rule by a dictator or strong group that results when the ruler(s) have too much power. The existing government of the Articles Of Confederation was too weak, so the plan was to build a new government that prevented tyranny.

Read More

Note On Speeches Debating The Consitution From The NY Ratification Convention

846 Words | 4 Pages

Overall, the British government was a tyrannical rule in which the ruling and decisions were all up to one person, King George III. Since the United States had previously already had to go through a terrifying event that was the British government, the Anti Federalists wanted to learn from their mistakes and avoid a government that would possess unmanageable power which would lead to corruption within the system and oppression for the people under the rule. Secondly, the Anti Federalists had also debated that there was a lacking of a Bill of Rights, which would protect the freedom of the people and make sure that the government would not overstep boundaries. With the current path that the Constitution was following the Anti Federalists feared the downfall of the United States, with all three of the branches of the new central government threatening all of the beliefs and ideals that the Anti Federalists had followed. Not only was there a lacking of power and representation for the people in the state there was also a lack of representation in the Central government for the people in order to speak out against the ratification of the constitution.

Read More

Anti Federalists Dbq Analysis

227 Words | 1 Pages

After the American Revolution, two political parties by the people in an effort to form a government of their own. Anti-Federalists wanted small local government and Federalists wanted large Federal centered Government. Anti-Federalists are afraid of a strong government because “when the people fear the government, there is tyranny… [and] when the government fears the people there is liberty” (Doc B).

Read More

The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

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

Anti Federalism Dbq

175 Words | 1 Pages

While the federalist and anti-federalist had opposing views in a functioning government system, some crucial points were agreed upon. They both knew in order for the United States to succeed as a new country, they needed better stability and a sense of unity between the colonies. The Articles of Confederation, on both sides, were thought of as a weak system of governmental control. A central government appealed to both sides, but as to how much power it would possess was still at a still point. Federalist wanted a strong central government, whereas anti-federalists were afraid of it seeming too much like the British monarchy.

Read More

Supreme Courts Dbq

1112 Words | 5 Pages

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

Read More

The Conformity Of The Federalists

350 Words | 2 Pages

In 1787, a final draft of the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Those who were in favor of the ratification were called Federalist or nationalist. Among these federalists, were James Madison of Virginia, John Jay of New York and Alexander Hamilton. They had a concrete proposal. They wrote a collection of 85 essays defending the principle of a strong national government.

Read More

The Arguments Against Federalism In The United States

1211 Words | 5 Pages

Ensuring separation of power is important for avoiding tyranny, this stands true for then and now and even if one group was able to take control over all three branches of government, federalism makes sure that they would all still function independently. Arguments against federalism, then as well as now, is the lack of accountability for failed policies between the national and state government when there is an unclear divide on where power lies. At the conception of federalism the founding fathers created a positive attitude toward the national government in regards to regulations and now, Government regulations are seen as problems and not solutions. With so many changes since its birth the America we see today, in my opinion, is not what I think they had in

Read More

Positives And Negatives Of Interest Groups

508 Words | 3 Pages

Moreover, interest groups not only help organize public opinion but also let people express their opinions (increasing political participation) , especially the minority, who would otherwise be suppressed. For example, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a venue for political involvement which has made progress to promote social equality. I would also like to point out that interest groups are always well informed and so they can easily provide logical solutions to problems arising in the government’s sphere. Additionally, interest groups are also strong enough and in a way promote limited government. They take develop strong sense of every issue and keep a check on the government.

Read More

More about The Anti-Federalists: Competition Between Interest Groups

Related Topics

Open Document