Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalism vs anti-federalism
Federalism in the past 40 years
Federalism in the past 40 years
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
To the People of the States,
Why should we question our government? Why should we doubt the decision that was taken for the better of the people years ago? Before federalism was even considered did we not have an anti federalist government? Did we not try to make it work? If anti-federalism is for the better of the people why did we feel the need to question it? Why did we feel the need to change it? The answer to all of these questions is simple. Anti-federalism is not and will never be for the better of the states, but most importantly it’s not for the better of the people as a whole.
Federalism or anti-federalism? Each have positives and negatives however, depending on the subject and perspective of the people. I believe that
…show more content…
Anti-federalism would give the states the last remaining piece of power they need and desire to bring America to the brink of destruction. Because of the differences between each and every state anti-federalism would not work. Every state would have such different opinions that they would clash against each other simply because the neighboring state wouldn’t have the same opinion and or solution. It would cause havoc and …show more content…
Many violations have been made within the government. For example, the constitution only gives power to congress to to determine the requirements for citizenship. It doesn’t give congress the power to prohibit immigrants from travel, work, and proper pay. Just because a person is somewhere illegally it gives americans the right to pay poorly and mistreat employees? If work gets done properly at the end of the day why shouldn’t the pay be fair too? Immigrants affect the economy greatly in the United States. Whether people want to accept it or not immigrants are a huge factor in america 's economic growth as a country. If immigrants make the U.S. great productions and money why can’t they get compensated for their hard work? Instead of passing unconstitutional laws should we not pass at least one laws that would benefit immigrants perhaps like proper
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
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.
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
Since the Dawn of time, man was had many beliefs from the belief of gods or a god, democracy and communism. In the beginning days of our nation (United States of America) the bill of rights was being created due to American Revolution and the weakness of the articles of the confederation. The articles of confederation were the constitution at the time for the United States of America before and after the American Revolution, which we fought against the tyranny of the British government. The American government at the time realized the Articles of Confederation was weak and need to be changed. This resulted in the bill rights being drafted and added into the US Constitution. But before the bill rights
Despite American government being characteristically dominated by cooperative feudalism, there is a persistence of national supremacy elements, state’s rights, and dual fideism. The current situation can, therefore, be regarded as balanced federalism. A cooperative relationship between state government and the national government is specifically rooted in a transfer of payments done from the national government to government in lower levels, which is referred to as fiscal feudalism (Bednar, 2009). There are mainly two types of grants which are block grants and categorical grants. This is a federal aid which is spent by states within a given policy area, although with much state discretion. General revenue sharing (GRS) was used back in the 1970s and 1980s. GRS awarded the state maximum control over policies, but gaining political support was difficult for them.
The federalists view saw the republicans view as a weakness. They insisted on a stronger common government. The federalists had an understanding that there could only be one sovereign in a political system, one final authority that everyone must obey and no one can appeal. They thought this was the only effective way in creating an effective central government. The independent states seemed to think it was clear that each one of them were independently sovereign, although based on history only small countries were suitable for the republican government. With history proving the republicans wrong for trying to create a republican government in the states the federalists were slowly trying to create a stronger central government. There first step was making the sovereign states agree to the Articles of Confederation which established a close alliance of independent states. The federalist central government was referred to as a “confederacy”.
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
This group of supporters was mainly compiled up of farmers, share croppers, and tradesmen. The Anti-Federalists believed that each state should have their own independent government. They were led by Patrick Henry and George Mason. Anti-federalists argued that the new Constitution would eventually lead to the disbanding state governments, the consolidation of the Union into one national government, and as a result would put an end to all forms of self-rule in the states. In debating their arguments, the Anti-Federalists often relied on the expressions and ideas from the Revolutionary War era. This was an example of a centralized national (government) power with an overbearing monarch. They claimed that the United States Constitution represented a step away from the democratic goals of the American Revolution and a step towards monarchy and aristocracy. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution would take away Congress’s power and give it all to the president. Many Anti-Federalists supported a type of government known as agrarian republicanism. This type of government is centered around a society of farmers who participate in local
Even though there are pros and cons of federalism, this system of government makes America a free nation and separates us from many our nations.
Most Federalist are elitist that own large amounts of land, educated and feel that they should govern to spare the republic from a democracy. Due to their education and experience with negotiations and treaties I feel that they are better suited to make decisions that will benefit the nation as a whole instead of each individual colony. With those in control that are educated and aware of the opportunities they can do what’s best for everyone by educating those that are unfamiliar with the opportunities that are available. A national government would strengthen the new nation as well as improve international trade for the benefit of all. This would not be possible with each colony being responsible for its own government without guidance. A strong national government relates to the economic development of the nation
Federalism is a political system in which authority is divided between different levels of government (Barbour and Wright, 75). Federalism has been around since 1787 in the United States of America. The divided powers between the state governments and the national governments are powers that are limited to a certain level so they do not depend on each other for power. The United States of America has a federal government in which the central government shares influence with the numerous smaller state governments. The idea was for a “more perfect union.”
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.