The government of the United States has many policies and procedures that we as citizens has to live by some more controversial than some; some policies and procedures has been questioned and some has been justified. I will state some questions about some of these policies and procedures and answer them accordingly. The first pertains to the federalists and the anti-federalists. Explain the differences between the federalists and Anti Federalist. Why did the anti-federalists want a bill of rights? Explain how this country would have been different had they not been successful in their push to add a bill of rights. The differences between the federalists and the anti-federalist are like night and day; it was difficult for these two groups to …show more content…
Talk about some of the advantages and disadvantages of federalism. Does this system serve the United States well? Why or why not? From my notion federalism has a more moral outlook on our country as a hold. They try to prevent a stronger power by distributing some essential power to the states which also gives the United States citizens more option. Different states have different policies which will attract citizen that concur with their laws. For instance gay marriage, some states in the United States support gay marriage and believe that people should marry who they want to marry no matter the gender. California is one of those states. According to an article written by Tamara Thompson, “States are strongly divided on same-sex marriage; thirty-three states prohibit same-sex marriage, including 29 states that have prohibitions in their state constitutions. With New Mexico, 17 states along with the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage; most states that have recently allowed same-sex marriage have done so through legislation.” With that said individuals who live in Georgia, where gay marriage is banned, are free to move to any other states where gay marriage is permitted. Legalization of marijuana in certain states but not in another can be a second example of why giving states power to make their own law can benefit us as citizens. If we don’t concur with one state law, we can move to a state with the laws we do agree with; therefore, giving states control is definitely a pro rather than a con. On the other hand, we have the cons and disadvantages of federalism. One disadvantage of federalism is the fact that states that have contradicting laws that is in the vicinity of each other can be affected by each other. For example states who legalize marijuana, which includes but not
There are many differences between the Democratic-Republic party and the Federalist Party. Especially in the last decade of the 18th century which is late 1700’s, early 1800’s. They have different views on foreign relations and their beliefs on the war between France and Britain, their Federal government and vision for America. Their leaders are completely different people.
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers played a major role in US History. They dealt with many problems in politics. The papers were made after the Revolutionary war. People started to worry that the government would not last under the Articles of Confederation. Without having a backup plan just yet, some delegates met up and created the Constitution. The constitution had to be ratified before it became the rule of all the land. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discuss whether the constitution should be approved or not. Some things Anti-Federalist and Federalists argued was a strong national government, a standing army, and whether or not the constitution should be ratified and why.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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.
When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to be a functional independent nation.
If you drive to another state, the state that you drove to is required to honor your driver’s license. The states are also required to recognize any sort of official decision made by the courts in a different state
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
George Washington the first president of the United States had a great duel ahead of him. Outraged citizens had a great deal of tension before his term, but when he entered into office those feelings of frustration arose. The Americans commenced to contradicting the ideas and beliefs of their counterparts, these hostile events eventually lead to the clashing of the citizens. Both sides were infuriated with one another, so they formed separate parties known as Republicans and Federalists. These clashes were instituted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison of the Republican Party, along with Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist Party. Alexander Hamilton and The Federalists supported a strong central government, and they believed that without one an individual would have too much power possibly forming an anarchy, while the Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
Some of the advantages of having a federal government are that the national level of government can work on the bigger picture tasks while the state government solve the local and specific issues, so that each departments time can be used wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, if citizens took their everyday problems to the national level, then the national government would be over worked and the citizen might have to travel far to even reach the states capital. Each side of the
In conclusion Federalism is a big part of our country. Federalism does have its pros and cons but it’s safe to say that it has so far worked out fairly well. Still, we must keep in mind that federalism does affects our everyday lives and many times we take for granted that the individual in political parties will make the right decisions for the well-being of the public, though at times it is not always be the case. We must remember that for change to happen we must be involved and ready to learn and see and understand ways that we can make a difference, for at the end of the day it is our lives that are affected with every single decision that is made.
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.