Federalists vs Anti-Federalists After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the weak Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. It was turned over to the states for approval and for some it brought back fears and memories of King George, while for others it fixed the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Upon completion of it’s writing, a debate was started concerning ratification. Some people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government while others thought it was a great step forward and necessary for the future of the U.S.A. The Federalists were those who were for the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists were those against it. Both sides argued that their way was correct.
…show more content…
They believed that the Constitution would prevent a monarchy and/or a tyranny. Column 2, box 5 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper states that “The Powers of the national government are separated and balanced…The Constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch.” This shows that the citizens did not need to fear a monarchy because checks and balances would prevent it. All of the branches would be equal and have ways to keep each other in line. Another argument of the Federalists was that the central government had little power and this power can only be used to help the people. Column 2, box 3 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper says “[the government's] powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade, currency, and defense.” These problems were not addressed in the Articles of Confederation and caused confusion. The Federalists were saying that it was necessary that a central government deals with these powers to keep a …show more content…
They argued that the government would need to use force to keep its people in line, the necessary and proper clause was dangerous and that a bill of rights was necessary. The Anti-Federalists did not believe a national government could exist at that time without military force. They said in column 1, box 2 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper that “The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate...the only way the government would be able to rule would be through the use of military force.” This Anti-Federalist quote explains that communication was not good enough to keep everyone informed about elections, laws and national news. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of this since that is not unlike what King George did when he introduced The Quartering Act or closed down boston harbor after the boston tea party. The Anti-Federalists thought that the new government would turn into a tyranny. The Anti-Federalists argued that the necessary and proper clause was too broad. In the first column in the second box of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper it states that “It is dangerous not to list the powers of the government in order to put clear limits on them”. This quote expresses the uncertainty that the Anti-Federalist have with the necessary and proper clause. They think that the government may use this power to do what is
They believed that the Constitution would prevent a monarchy and/or a tyranny. Column 2, box 5 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper states that “The Powers of the national government are separated and balanced…The Constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch.” This shows that the citizens did not need to fear a monarchy because checks and balances would prevent it. All of the branches would be equal and have ways to keep each other in line. Another argument of the Federalists was that the central government had little power and this power can only be used to help the people. Column 2, box 3 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper says “[the government's] powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade, currency, and defense.” These problems were not addressed in the Articles of Confederation and caused confusion. The Federalists were saying that it was necessary that a central government deals with these powers to keep a …show more content…
They argued that the government would need to use force to keep its people in line, the necessary and proper clause was dangerous and that a bill of rights was necessary. The Anti-Federalists did not believe a national government could exist at that time without military force. They said in column 1, box 2 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper that “The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate...the only way the government would be able to rule would be through the use of military force.” This Anti-Federalist quote explains that communication was not good enough to keep everyone informed about elections, laws and national news. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of this since that is not unlike what King George did when he introduced The Quartering Act or closed down boston harbor after the boston tea party. The Anti-Federalists thought that the new government would turn into a tyranny. The Anti-Federalists argued that the necessary and proper clause was too broad. In the first column in the second box of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper it states that “It is dangerous not to list the powers of the government in order to put clear limits on them”. This quote expresses the uncertainty that the Anti-Federalist have with the necessary and proper clause. They think that the government may use this power to do what is