The Pros And Cons Of Anti-Federalism

Great Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The Federalists believed that the Constitution covered the natural rights given to a citizen, while the Anti-Federalists believed that the creation of a Bill of Rights was necessary to protect the individual rights of the…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Despite the majority of the citizen’s opinion, the Anti-Federalists were still concerned about the Bill of Rights, and the preservation of certain rights of the people; such as trial by jury, freedom of speech, and other basic rights. They also express their thought on the power of the central government in the United States; saying that a nation as large as the Unite States could not be possibly controlled by one national government even though the constitution have granted them power. Despite the Anti-Federalists unity in opposing the ratification of the constitution, they could not come to an agreement on an alternative to operate the government. This made them…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists believed that the Constitution was sufficient to protect individual rights. They thought that the Constitution was structured well enough to guard citizen’s rights and liberties and there is no need in Bill of Rights. Anti-federalists, however, supported Bill of Rights as essential and claimed that the absence of a Bill of Rights is a real threat to individual citizens’ freedoms. They felt that Constitution is not enough as it can not grant rights to the public properly. They insisted that rights need to be explicitly and separately stated.…

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Anti-Federalists had the better argument overall because they had clear instances showing how a strong central government could become corrupt and lose interest in its citizens. They wanted the power to stay in the states because it would allow more control over what was happening within the nation and it would give citizens more protected rights. In the end, after several debates between the groups, they agreed on creating the Bill of Rights, which gave the citizens protected rights. In addition, they agreed on forming one central government that was made up of three branches, all with restricted powers because of the checks and balances between them.…

    • 993 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Some of America’s finest minds got together for the Philadelphia convention to figure out which form of government would be best. The Federalists were formed by Alexander Hamilton and its other well-known members were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison. Federalists desired a secure central government and feeble state governments, preferred the Constitution to aid the amount owed and stress of the American Revolution, were against the Bill of Rights, and were supported in large urban areas. Meanwhile, the Anti-federalists were composed by Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Richard Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Warren. Anti-federalists insisted that power in the states not in the central government, picked the Articles…

    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists and Anti-Federalists The feud between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist party was based on the ratification of the Constitution. Even though both groups believed that the principal purpose of government is to secure individual rights and that the best instrument for that purpose is some form of limited republican government. They also agreed that the individual has the right to do anything that the government has no power to keep him from doing.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalists Essay

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Other people felt as if the new Constitution had no separation of powers. They felt as if the branches had too much power and there was nothing keeping one branch from becoming too powerful (Doc 2). The Anti-Federalists did not want to be in the same kind of government they fought so hard to get away from. The Anti-Federalists were also frustrated with the fact that the new Constitution laid out all the rules, but did not list any rights the people had. So Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The federalists believed that adding the Bill of Rights to the constitution was unnecessary. For more than four years the debate went back and forth until 1791 when the American Bill of Rights was adopted as the first ten amendments to the Constitution and became the law of the land. Conclusion While the articles did create a form of rules, the rules were vague and eventually caused many problems that led to a downward spiral in the American Union. The division between the north and south posed many problems during the Constitutional Convention.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The anti-federalist thought that this new document would have all the same characteristics of Great Britain the country they had fought so hard to extract themselves from and others feared that this new government threatened their personal liberties. The Anti-Federalist demanded a document that protected states rights and individual rights and eventually the Federalist made The Bill Of Rights. I am standing here today signing the ratification of the constitution because of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists making this…

    • 684 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Patrick Henry Dbq

    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Patrick Henry at a Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5 1788, and James Madison, in the Federalist, Number 10, 1787 represent two different perspectives on the ratification of the constitution. Anti-federalists and federalists were opposing forces in the ratification process. Anti-federalists wanted to prevent the constitution from being ratified while the federalists favored a strong central government and the passage of the constitution. Anti-federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. They feared the constitution could lead to autocratic tyranny.…

    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    From 1787-1790 the American Constitution was debated by two opposing political philosophies named the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist were in favor of the newly formed Constitution while the Anti-Federalists objected the new constitution believing that the central government seized too much power by creating a single national government forcing the first Congress to establish a bill of rights to ensure the liberties that the Antifederalists felt the Constitution violated. The most significant topic of the debate the participation of the people in voting for ratification of the constitution. Pauline Maier in her article Take This or Nothing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, illustrates reason the constitution was ratified…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    These were known as the Federalist papers. Therefore, Americans asked that the Constitution had a Bill of Rights. Americans thought this would encourage the laws. They believed that it was needed to protect people against the power of the national government. The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted.…

    • 599 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Katie Beal Mr.Kreimer Government 13 October Patrick Henry I’m Patrick Henry and I am an Anti-Federalist because I am strongly against the Constitution. I didn't like the fact that it didn't have a Bill Of Rights for the states, and I feared that it gave the government way too much power. I thought that it would trample the rights of the states. I opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and I now I am opposing the ratification of the constitution. I am ashamed to see that this is even becoming an option when I; myself fought so hard to get us independence.…

    • 554 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The anti-federalists feared that the central government would become too powerful and that if the government would commit an infraction on the states’ rights. The Federalists were in agreement with the constitution. The federalists were wealthy, well educated and were unified by the thought of higher power. The leaders of the Federalists included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton both yearned for an effective constitution. In contrast, the Anti-federalists were generally farmers and anybody that fell below the line of being wealthy.…

    • 319 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists supported the idea of one central government but Anti-Federalists opposed ratification. They argued that the republic had to be small and warned that the Constitution would result in a government of oppression. They were afraid that Constitution will not guarantee the rights of ordinary people. They pointed on the luck of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution which makes Americans unprotected of basic rights such us freedom of speech. In order for a final constitution to be proposed, a series of compromises were needed to be done.…

    • 1325 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays