More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing federalists and anti federalists
Role of the bill of rights
Differences between federalists and anti federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
With the Bill of Rights being my favorite topic about the constitution, to me and many people, the it’s one of the most essential papers given. It protects the natural rights of the citizens and are the ones that people use the most. It differentiates the United States from the rest of the countries by providing us with many types of liberties from the countries that most of the times don’t grant the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, and in extreme cases, don’t even have freedom of religion for their citizens. The federalists might never have obtained the ratification of several important states if they had not promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution because most of the state constitutions adopted during the revolution included a very specific declaration of the rights of all people. …show more content…
Each side had their own opinions and way of thinking, leading them to disagreements. Hamilton, while recognizing the benefits of the territorial and Institutional division of power, leaves no doubt that he prefers a concentration to a dispersion of power. It implies the superiority of federal legislation on the state and the possibility of executing that federal law within the States. Madison, on the contrary, emphasizes the benefits of a federal government mainly because it creates balances of power, that is, emphasizes the value of the Member States. For him, federalism is an institution designed to protect States, and while recognizing that sovereignty ultimately lies in central government, federalism would not be compatible with the concentration of power in the hands of the state. He argues that a confederation would tend to reduce the power of the central government. Between Hamilton (anti-federalist 84) and Madison (Federalist 10), I believe the anti federalist have a stronger argument. While Madison
Our powerpoint states that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, did not agree. The powerpoint mentions that they attacked every area of the Constitution, but two of its features attracted the most criticism. One was the extremely increased powers of the central government. The second included the lack of “bill of rights” that would have provided necessary liberties including freedom of speech and religion.
Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power would be given to the faction forming people; thus, they wouldn't become tyrannical. Hamilton, in No. 84, defended the Constitution with the case that the Constitution can be amended by representatives, who are there to represent the citizens' interests.
The Federalist Party, led by James Madison, was in favor of the newly formed Constitution. One of the main objects of the federal constitution is to secure the union and in addition include any other states that would arise as a part of the union. The federal constitution would also set its aim on improving the infrastructure of the union. This would include improvements on roads, accommodations for travelers, and interior navigation. Another consideration for the Federalist Constitution would be in regards to the safety of each individual state. They believed that each state should find an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection.
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
...diverse republic, where it would be difficult for factions to gain majority power. However, Madison knew that to large of a republic would lead to a country with no cohesion among its states. Madison notes that if the republic would get too large, their representatives would take little notice of local issues. In federalist 10, Madison states that Federalism would solve the problem of a large republic. Madison argues that no matter how large constituencies of representatives in the federal government, state and local officials will look after local matters. These local officials will have smaller constituencies, which will take care of any local problems that may arise. In federalist 51, Madison continues his argument of federalism, stating that federalism is supposed to protect liberty; by making sure one department or branch of government does not grow to large.
As James Madison said, “The different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” What James Madison is trying to say is that the central and state governments have enough power that they don’t control everything. The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs, and the state government has enough power to help the state’s needs because the state’s needs may be more specific. From this, you may conclude, that dividing powers between the central and state governments prevents tyranny. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, which means a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government.
Hamilton's Federalist Party and the Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson had polarized views on the majority of the important political issues. These two political parties which possessed differing opinions and views pertaining to the future of the U.S. government were persistent in their respective arguments against each other. The strongly contrasting views of these two parties are the foundation of the puissant and sometimes callous attacks by the Republicans against Hamilton and his economic plan. Although Alexander Hamilton was viewed as an arrogant self-promoting individual, the primary reason he faced fierce opposition from the Democratic Republicans against his economic plans was strictly rooted in the fundamental differences that Hamilton and the Republicans held when debating their proposed structures of the U.S. government.
The Madisonian model, which was first proposed by James Madison, is a structure of government made to prevent either a minority or majority group to build up enough power to dominate the others. The Constitution made this possible. One of the principles was to separate the powers of the government into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The separation of powers allowed each of the three branches to be independent with the exception of working together in order to govern. Congress passes laws, the president applies and manages the laws, and the courts elucidates the laws in distinct conditions. Madison clarified his beliefs in Federalist Paper No. 51 saying that in order for a government to exist it was necessary for there to be a balance in power. By giving each branch administer constitutional means, they'll avoid intrusions of the others. The constitutional means are a system of checks and balances, where each branch of government has the right to inspect the conduct of the others. Neither branc...
The Bill of Rights was created as a listing of the rights granted to citizens, the Bill of Rights serves to protect the people from a powerful government. These civil rights granted to U.S. Citizens are included in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Locke’s ideas about checks and balances and the division of church and state were later embodied in the U.S. Constitution as well. The Constitution replaced a more weakly organized system of government as outlined under the Articles of Confederation. John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704.
When the Second Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution in 1787, there was a controversy between the federalists and the anti-federalists surrounding whether or not to have a Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists claimed that a bill of rights was needed that listed the guaranteed rights that the government could never take away from a person i.e. “inalienable rights.” A Bill of Rights was eventually deemed necessary, and has worked for over 210 years. There are many reasons why the ten amendments are still valid to this day, and the best examples are the First Amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
Anti-federalists opposed the Constitution and one of their arguments was that the government had no power. Anti-federalists thought that
...ons of people, the plans will never be successful and will forever be a burden on the public. Hamilton was more concerned with the government as a whole, while Madison was concerned with the people that the government will affect.
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
Those who feared that the federal government would become too strong were assured by Madison in Federalist No. 14 that “in the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administrating laws…The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other objects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity”
In the Federalist No. 46, James Madison had asserted that the states and national government were in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, which are constituted with different powers. But Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist No. 28, had suggested that the both levels of government would actually exercise their authority for the citizens' benefit: In case of any of their citizen’s rights are invasion by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. The federal government has certain express powers which are powers that are spelled out in the Constitution, which include the right to collect and declare taxes, declaration of war, and regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. The Necessary and proper clause grants the federal government the imp...