• Home Page
  • The Pros And Cons Of Anti-Federalism

The Pros And Cons Of Anti-Federalism

Great Essays
Show More
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

    Federalist Vs. Anti-Federalists
    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Federalist Vs. Anti-Federalists

    This would allow for the government to do things that aren't listed within the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to this. They wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Some examples of Anti-Federalists are George Mason and John Hancock. Anti-Federalists by definition are a political party that wanted the power of the individual state to be greater than the power of the central government, and a strict interpretation of the constitution promoted this. For example, the creation of a national bank would not be sufficient, as it was not stated within the Constitution. Generally speaking the Federalists had stronger support for the Constitution because they created it. Alongside this, the Anti-Federalists pledged for lower taxes, as most of them were farmers from the south. In comparison most Federalists were generally buisiness men from the north. One of the key differences between the two was the idea of a Bill of Rights. 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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Federalist And Anti Federalists Similarities
    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Federalist And Anti Federalists Similarities

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalism Pros And Cons
    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Anti Federalism Pros And Cons

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalists Pros And Cons
    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Anti Federalists Pros And Cons

    This was the product of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists debates. These two groups fiercely disagreed more over the means than the ends. Both sides acknowledged that a stronger national authority was needed and that such an authority required an independent source of revenue to function properly. They also both agreed that safeguards against tyranny need to be established. But, they disagreed on whether the enumeration of federal power would by itself serve to restrain the national government within those powers. The two sides in the end worked together. The Federalists won the debate, and the Constitution was ratified. However, they did acknowledge that the Constitution could be improved by the addition of the Bill of Rights that was promoted by the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution has provided a model of resilient republican government whose features have been repeatedly borrowed by other nations throughout the years. It also has provided a flexible system of government that presidents, legislators, judges, and the people have adjusted to changing social, economic, and political…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalists Arguments
    • 993 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Anti Federalists Arguments

    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. On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified by the thirteen states and is still a very important document today symbolizing the start of a new powerful united nation, the United States of…

    • 993 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalists Essay
    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Anti Federalists Essay

    Two of the major leaders of this group were Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who was overseas during this time. The Anti-Federalists thought that under the Articles people had the rights that they rightfully deserved. Under the Articles, the poor people benefitted greatly. During the process of trying to get the new Constitution ratified the Anti-Federalists felt that under this new government the rich had all of the power instead of the people (Doc 5). Under the Articles the states had the power to make laws and do whatever they pleased, and to some of the states the idea of changing to a government that the central government had all the power was absolutely absurd. 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.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Ratifying The Constitution Dbq
    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ratifying The Constitution Dbq

    Few of the Anti-Federalists influential figures such as George Mason, and Patrick Henry argued that ratifying of the constitution would result in problems evolving the nation to a completely new and unreliable government. Unlike the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists have differing positions on why the constitution should not be ratified; however, all its delegates preferred the States weak alliance under the Article of Confederation compared to the national government power under the constitution. The Anti-federalists formed a coalition with the Federalists by forging with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson a semi-federalists as he agrees with views from both sides, and others who came to realize the national government may gain too much power. They then used the ratification arguments of the federalists asserting that the power of the national government is limited, and the federal government has exceeded those powers. Regarding to the citizens, most of the citizens were against the Anti-Federalists view, as they believe the nation is weak enough already, and a centralized power is exactly what it needs. 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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation And Constitution
    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation And Constitution

    Federalist James Madison Argued that “No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.”(We Still Hold, n.d.) 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.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalist Arguments Against The Constitution
    • 1556 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalist Arguments Against The Constitution

    Anti-Federalists had been the delegates primarily opposed to the new Constitution, as not only did they support the Articles of Confederation, upholding its sufficiency in its establishment of federal and state government, albeit admitting some of its flaws, they had also attempted to argue directly against the new document. The Federalists, on the other hand, decided that they would support the Constitution all the way through, until either it was ratified or it fell through. In doing so, they had countered a number of Anti-Federalist arguments. In order to detail the Federalist counterarguments, the original arguments themselves must be taken into…

    • 1556 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay
    • 684 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

    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
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Patrick Henry Dbq
    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Patrick Henry Dbq

    Anti-federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. They feared the constitution could lead to autocratic tyranny. They also felt that their civil liberties were in jeopardy and desired a list of guaranteed civil liberties. Patrick Henry holds an anti-federalist view in his…

    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Patrick Henry's Arguments Against The Constitution
    • 554 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Patrick Henry's Arguments Against The Constitution

    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.…

    • 554 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Federalist Shard Anti Federalists
    • 130 Words
    • 1 Pages

    Federalist Shard Anti Federalists

    Although the Federalist shard many of the same ideas of the Antifederalist such as individual rights (Oaks 223). The Anti-Federalists shared different view on how the government should be ran. Because of their experiences with the tyranny of Great Britain, they feared the establishment of a strong national government. The Anti-Federalists also did not accept the use of separation of powers and checks and balances, because they feared the branches of government would abuse the power and not serve the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of the individuals. It was evident in the way they thought things should be ran and why they thought they where right, being that they where from a old-line of republicans and did not favor a system…

    • 130 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalist Ratification
    • 517 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Anti Federalist Ratification

    The Anti-Federalist felt greatly upset by the Federalist ratification of the Constitution, which had shifted state power into federal hands, while the Federalists wished to keep a Bill of Rights out of the Constitution, because they believed that they could not list each right, and that the rights unstated would be broken and abused.…

    • 517 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists Vs Anti Federalists
    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Federalists Vs Anti Federalists

    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…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2023 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings