The Pros And Cons Of Anti-Federalism

Amazing 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

  • Decent Essays

    The Federalists and the Anti Federalists have different viewpoints on the clauses presented. The federalist paper number 33 presents the argument that the Federal government is granted authority to make all laws that are necessary and proper for the United States. These laws are to be the supreme law of the land. The Antifederalists disagreed with this idea because they believed it would give too much power to the Federal Government leaving the people and the state governments vulnerable. The federalists saw the idea of doing what is necessary and proper for everyone the best possible solution to the United States.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Within the time frame situated around the birth of the Constitution, one particular contention repeatedly came to public notice between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, that is, the greatest question separating the two parties. Is the Constitution in adequate as a result of it not including a bill of rights? Although both parties believed strongly that a preservation of liberties was essential, they still carried very diverse views regarding how strong the central government ought to be. The Constitution is the product of James Madison after many states claimed their wishes for greater constitutional protection over individual rights and liberties. Anti-federalists believed that, unlike the Constitution, a bill of rights would set certain restrictions on the federal government's power.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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. However, they did disagree on the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The Anti-Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that lived in rural areas, were those that opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution of 1788.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Anti-Federalists fought for a Bill of Rights to be included within the Constitutional framework governing the federal government so as to explicitly codify individual rights under the law. Their skepticism regarding the nature of government recognized state action and the liberties of the individual citizen are typically antithetical in nature and in need of explicit protection. Some Federalists on the other hand were actually fearful of such methods, worrying that explicitly listing the rights of the individual was an inherently limiting approach to liberty – with the idea that those which were not listed were not fundamentally retained by the people. James Madison stated, “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” James Madison original position prior to Constitutional ratification and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution inherently restricted the powers of the national government to those that were clearly defined.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    During the period of 1801 through 1817, the conflict of the Democratic-Republican views on the constitution were arguing against the ideas of the Federalists. The two parties believed in completely different ideas of how to interpret the constitution. Although the parties knew they must come to some agreement in how the constitution should be interpreted they both had some very good reasons there party was correct. The Democratic-Republicans believed in interpreting the constitution exactly. This means that the Congress or the President should follow the constitution word for word.…

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Brutus Anti Federalism

    • 1849 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Although the writers of the Brutus essays understood the importance of amending the Articles of Confederation, they nonetheless opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist, who wrote the “Brutus” essays in response to the Federalist Papers, were concerned about a powerful centralized government, individual rights and equal representation. In the first of the Brutus essays, the Anti-Federalist articulate their concerns about a strong federal government. The second of the Brutus essays advocates for a bill of rights, in order to ensure people’s individual rights. Lastly the Anti-Federalists wrote in the third of the Brutus essays about the issue of equal representation.…

    • 1849 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Jefferson’s Rule is that you do not have to agree with governmental ideas. It is perfectly acceptable to have conflicting viewpoints and you should have the freedom to voice your opinion and fight for what you believe. Thomas Jefferson was the voice for conflict in the United States. Jefferson desired federal state power, to keep the Articles of Confederation with a few amendments so that way, the government was not completely weakened and the citizens still had a few laws to live by. He believed in the people’s rights to voice one’s opinion, or rights to Liberty.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Federalists are going to invoke the Elastic Clause, which gives Congress all the necessary and proper power to execute its duties. What is “necessary and proper” to some might be unconstitutional to another. The Necessary and Proper Clause is going to be invoked by the Federalists, to do things that the Constitution does not give them the right to do. Republicans are going to have an entirely different take, and they want to restrain the powers of government, and they are not going to invoke the Elastic Clause, but invoke the Reserve Clause. The Reserve Clause suggests that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited by the federal government are reserved for the states of the people.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main argument against this was if one man was in charge, the government would be far too similar to a monarchy. In defence to this Hamilton enforced the idea that if the office holder was deemed irresponsible, removal from office would be supported. Jefferson was in complete opposition to this, as he stated if one man was to be put in executive order, trouble was destined to occur. He believed that the executive power should consist of a single man and his office, to allow for the regulation of the single man. The conclusion drawn was a split between both Hamilton’s views and Jefferson’s views, “a single executive of limited…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays