More handpicked essays just for you.
The creation of the american constitution
What is the importance of the bill of rights
The creation of the american constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The main issue that went wrong with my debate was how logical I found the other side. I was put on the anti-federalist side, however I believed the federalist side made more sense. This made it difficult to debate the anti-federalist side and to have counter the good points Sophia made (which were really good). However, I still believe I was able to counter her arguments well as I knew the anti-federalist side and I understood what they believed. It definitely would have been easier to argue the federalist side, but sometimes it is better to get a challenge and argue something you don’t necessarily know all about or agree with. The Constitution did effectively balance federal and state power in my opinion. The writers of the Constitution did a good job blending both …show more content…
federalist and anti-federalist ideals into the Constitution so everyone would be happy. The federal government got the power of making most laws, declaring war, printing money, and taxing, among others which is very important. The state got the power of making the lesser important laws (such as traffic laws) as well as other powers that belong to the state. With the effective balance of federal and state, they equal each other out and one doesn’t have power over the other. If the federal had more power, than they would basically have the same government as Britain. However, if the state has too much power, then they aren’t acting as a unified nation and each state would practically be its own country (bringing right back the Articles of Confederation). This is why it is important that the power between both is equal which I believe was accomplished. As far as Congressional representation goes, I was debating the side of anti-federalists in favor of the New Jersey plan. However the Virginia Plan does have its benefits. If there is proportional representation, then a state with less people doesn’t have just as much authority as a state with twice as many people. With equal representation, that means in the higher populated states, the people’s votes mean and are worth less than if you say lived in Rhode Island. This just makes sense. With proportional representation, each person’s vote is worth exactly the same. That way, everyone (that was eligible to vote) gets a voice and a say in the government. If I lived in say Virginia, I would be angry if I found out Connecticut had the same power as my state because it was considerably larger. However, I think the way Congress is set up is a great compromise (and it was the Great Compromise). It included both the New Jersey and Virginia Plans because in all honesty both made sense and had their benefits. The House of Representatives having proportional representation and the Senate having equal representation was a good call as it appeased both the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists mostly believed a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because they are practically stated in the Constitution.
Except, practically usually isn’t good enough. Without the rights directly spelled out, the government can twist the words of the Constitution and abuse these rights. This is the main argument for the anti-federalist side to why there needs to be a Bill of Rights. While the federalists may believe a Bill of Rights limits a person’s rights to that list, without the Bill of Rights at all there could technically be no rights. With the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, the rights are definitely insured and guaranteed by the government. That doesn’t mean a person’s rights are limited to the list at all; it just means the rights that are in the bill are the ones definitely protected by the government. Obviously the federalists’ argument didn’t hold up very well as there is a Bill of Rights today, and I believe that is probably a good thing as looking at all the protesting that goes on today and how all of those people always directly quote the Bill of Rights, I can definitely say it was more beneficial and not at all negative like the federalists believed it were to
be. Overall, the debate gave me a new perspective on the federalists and the anti-federalists and the complications that came to be from the making of the Constitution. And while the federalists mostly seem to have won the battle, there is a lot of anti-federalist influence today with the Bill of Rights, powers of the state, and the Senate with its equal representation.
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.
With these different balances to control the powers throughout the new government, the problem of tyranny wasn’t as such of a problem as it was when the Articles of Confederation were in place. The states were now represented justly, the national and state levels of government fairly empowered, and the three branches within the national government were balanced. Even the three branches within balanced each other out, so one wouldn’t become too under or over powered. The new government created by the Constitution was a good answer to protect against
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.
As everyone can see, the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers have made some good and acceptable changes to politics. Although there was much dispute and arguing, the Federalists won and the Constitution was ratified. The date of ratification was September 17, 1787. One of the main reasons the Federalists won was their strong government. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists lacked a well-organized government. Whatever the outcome, everyone can easily say the Federalist and Anti-Federalists both put a lot of time and effort in their papers and stood up for what they believed in.
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.
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.
We can only guess who different the United States would be now. If there was no bill of rights, it is possible that the freedoms that we see today in the ammendants would be limited or even not exist if the government felt threaten. The government would possibly expand its power and “for the greater good of the american people” would limit our rights. All we have to see how that would work out, is look countries who have strong national government, and see how they taken their peoples freedom ( india, Venezuela, mexico, Pakistan). Countries like these shows us why the push for the bill of rights was so impoartant and how it impacts are lives on a daily basis. The Anti federalist assisted in securing our liberities, by limiting government intervation in the state problems as well as our daily
All of the topics discussed in these essays are very relevant to their respective causes. They are all backed up with valid information and examples. These essay's were written by very respectable men and show much insight on the subject of whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very opposing views, but used some of the same topics to support their point of views.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
The political views of the federalist and the republicans towards the government of the United States of America were different. The republicans stressed equality of rights among citizens allowing people to govern themselves. The federalists believed in a stronger government one in which was sovereign and had superior power over the local governments.
After the establishment of the constitution, the Federalist administrations faces many significant challenges when dealing with the economics of the United States; much of the country was divided over issues such as how to raise money, establishing a public credit system, how to pay the national debt, and whether or not a national bank should be established. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison came to represent the ideas of the people and as these ideas became more solid, debate and opposition rose. The Federalists saw multiple ways to resolve these issues, and the resolutions established that leadership in the United States would be successful.
years, it would be easy to ignore the anti-federalist of 1787 and 1788 as an
Though the two-party system of American politics has been in place since the late 18th century, exactly which two parties are contending for control of the government has occasionally shifted. One of the powerful political entities that formed at the beginning of this period, the Federalist Party, built up a large, well-known presence in the early republic, advocating for centralized government and banking, and a positive relationship with the British as the way forward for the burgeoning United States government during the period surrounding the turn of the 19th century. This affinity for the United States-Britain relationship and the accompanying overseas trade practiced by the United States would eventually spell doom for the future of
What are the pros and cons of federalism in the US? Federalism is a political system in which regional governments share power with a central or national government, but each level of government has legal powers that are independent of the other. Federalism is what keeps our government so called balanced. I will start with the pros first. We can say that federalism mobilizes political activity, various levels of government gives citizens different levels to be heard, it gives them higher levels of command to go through to get where they want to be. Federalism affects the interest groups more than anyone because they cannot just take over national governments but have to go through the state and local government first. This is where we get the dispersal of power, “a key objective for the founders was to disperse power and a two-level system that divided power not just among branches of government, but also between levels of government helped accomplish this goal” (Bond, pg. 80). For example, the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch carries out the laws, and the judicial...
Though the founders of the united states gave much consideration to the division of responsibility between federal and state government, many citizens today continue to debate the correct balance between federal and state government. My position is that the government powers are not well balanced. Some areas of conflict where the powers are improperly balanced are the executive and judicial branch. An area where the balance works well is in the legislative branch.