Final EXAM Part II: C Antifederalists vs Federalists Debate Tyranny and the New Constitution Antifederalists like George Mason’s objected to the new Constitution based upon their fear that the National Government would hold too much power and become tyrannical. The main objection that most Antifederalists shared was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights to protect the rights of citizens. Mason argued that since the national laws held supremacy to that of the State laws the “declarations of rights in separate states [were] no security” (EA pg. 16). In addition his confidence in the new system’s structure was stifled in part due to the shadow of representation bestowed in the House of Representatives. Antifederalists believed such little
…show more content…
One objection Mason lay was in the lack of an advisory council elected by the States through the House of Representatives. He believed this lack of an elected council would lead to poor advice and misconduct from a collection of minions or allow the president to be susceptible to the influence of the Senate. Antifederalist also believed the council would have prevented further blending of the branches. Mason stated the council would have eliminated the “unnecessary officer of the Vice-President…[that] [is ]dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers.” (EA pg. 17). Antifederalists also disputed the President’s power to grant pardons because he could hide crimes he may have commissioned. They criticized the executives blended power in regards to treaties “ The Executive and the Senate, [have] an exclusive power of legislation which might have been avoided by proper distinction” (EA pg. …show more content…
Federalists worked together to convince the people that a strong union was the best form of government to preserve liberty and peace. The Union will provide “[A] barrier against domestic faction and insurrection” (FP pg. 37). Creating a unified nation in their view diluted the power of majority factions, created a concert among nations to prevent insurrection and increased the likelihood of electing enlighten men to serve in office. Federalists countered historical and philosophical claims against large republics by maintaining the science had improved since the petty republics of Greece and Italy. Hamilton asserted the Constitution provided many protections against tyranny in its structure. “[The] [science] has received great improvement… distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges, holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature, by deputies of their own election…” (FP pg. 38). Federalists argued the structure prevented abuse of power by dividing it amongst three separate branches, but also by forcing the branches to check one another’s ambitions, forcing them to work
One objection Mason lay was in the lack of an advisory council elected by the States through the House of Representatives. He believed this lack of an elected council would lead to poor advice and misconduct from a collection of minions or allow the president to be susceptible to the influence of the Senate. Antifederalist also believed the council would have prevented further blending of the branches. Mason stated the council would have eliminated the “unnecessary officer of the Vice-President…[that] [is ]dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers.” (EA pg. 17). Antifederalists also disputed the President’s power to grant pardons because he could hide crimes he may have commissioned. They criticized the executives blended power in regards to treaties “ The Executive and the Senate, [have] an exclusive power of legislation which might have been avoided by proper distinction” (EA pg. …show more content…
Federalists worked together to convince the people that a strong union was the best form of government to preserve liberty and peace. The Union will provide “[A] barrier against domestic faction and insurrection” (FP pg. 37). Creating a unified nation in their view diluted the power of majority factions, created a concert among nations to prevent insurrection and increased the likelihood of electing enlighten men to serve in office. Federalists countered historical and philosophical claims against large republics by maintaining the science had improved since the petty republics of Greece and Italy. Hamilton asserted the Constitution provided many protections against tyranny in its structure. “[The] [science] has received great improvement… distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges, holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature, by deputies of their own election…” (FP pg. 38). Federalists argued the structure prevented abuse of power by dividing it amongst three separate branches, but also by forcing the branches to check one another’s ambitions, forcing them to work