Anti-federalist correctly pointed out that the Constitution granted the federal courts an abundance of power, at the expense of the state and local courts. They wanted equal representation and supported implementing the Bill of Rights into the constitution for guaranteed protection of individual and natural rights. So when deciding to support Federalism or Anti-Federalism I choose Anti-federalism. Not only do I concur with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and its necessity but I would have also side with them on senators and presidents being directly elected by the people.
Federalist Papers
“It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of …show more content…
84, Alexander Hamilton presented the reasons why he thought a bill of rights was not a necessary component of the proposed Constitution and how it could fire back or create complication. He explains that the idea of a bill of rights originated with kings whose powers needed to be examined or checked. In Hamilton's eyes the Constitution already checks the powers of the federal government because there are limits on what each branch can do, and there is no single, centralized official with unlimited powers. Hamilton says that under the Constitution, the people ultimately have all the power and individual rights and that the entire Constitution is in itself a bill of rights. He argues that by listing rights, it could imply that government has the power to limit the people's rights and power in other …show more content…
The reason why is because I believe that federalists didn't have an open mind to any improvements that could be made to the constitution. I would have to say that I agree with the constitution, however, I agree more with the extent of the Bill of Rights that was added later on. I strongly believe that the bill of rights is a cosmic aspect in our everyday lives. I don't know what our country would be like without these definite rights in place. Where would we be if the Anti-federalist did not object and oppose the beliefs of Federalist? Some would say that our government would be different if Anti-Federalist did not purpose the Bill of Rights or express their thoughts and beliefs on Natural rights and I wholeheartedly
Federalist Papers
“It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of …show more content…
84, Alexander Hamilton presented the reasons why he thought a bill of rights was not a necessary component of the proposed Constitution and how it could fire back or create complication. He explains that the idea of a bill of rights originated with kings whose powers needed to be examined or checked. In Hamilton's eyes the Constitution already checks the powers of the federal government because there are limits on what each branch can do, and there is no single, centralized official with unlimited powers. Hamilton says that under the Constitution, the people ultimately have all the power and individual rights and that the entire Constitution is in itself a bill of rights. He argues that by listing rights, it could imply that government has the power to limit the people's rights and power in other …show more content…
The reason why is because I believe that federalists didn't have an open mind to any improvements that could be made to the constitution. I would have to say that I agree with the constitution, however, I agree more with the extent of the Bill of Rights that was added later on. I strongly believe that the bill of rights is a cosmic aspect in our everyday lives. I don't know what our country would be like without these definite rights in place. Where would we be if the Anti-federalist did not object and oppose the beliefs of Federalist? Some would say that our government would be different if Anti-Federalist did not purpose the Bill of Rights or express their thoughts and beliefs on Natural rights and I wholeheartedly