Anti Federalist Approach Analysis

Better Essays
The question of the proper role and scope of government has remained one of the fundamental conflicts in the United States since its inception. The nation’s Founding Fathers were all ultimately skeptical of government, but in very different ways. While the Federalists favored a stronger, more structured Federal level governed by a central Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared centralized power and Constitutional control over the states – who in their minds were more responsive to their citizenry and more accurately reflected the desires and wishes of their respective populations. Both groups, however, were ultimately attempting to preserve liberty – simply disagreeing on the best method to do so. The Federalist approach believed that a …show more content…
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. He noted that any enumeration or specific listing of rights was going to be incomplete and therefore would leave important, non-enumerated, rights …show more content…
The American form of government was designed to be neither the source rights or the provider of what those rights can be used for. It established a culture of opportunity, but with no guarantee of success. That was the culture, which, in his first inaugural address, Jefferson defined as protecting people from injuring each other but otherwise generally leaving them to their own devices.3 The goal is not equality of outcome – on the contrary, such a notion is antithetical to the notion of liberty – but equality of opportunity. Those who better utilize their skills and the opportunities afforded to them, can and should receive more than those who do not. Such is the original notion of ‘fair’ in the United States. While an imperfect union from the start, the goal was not perfection, but to establish a new and

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    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. This strict interpretation would restrain the powers of the government. The drawback of strict interpretation is that there could be circumstances in which something that needed to be done, couldn’t be done without a Constitutional amendment. This can be a problem because it is not easy to amend the Constitution, and this can be a problem when there is an urgent matter that cannot wait for an amendment to be passed. Eventually the Republicans loosen their interpretation of the Constitution and become increasingly more…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Founding Fathers Journal Constitution: By all means, I did not support the decision made to ratify the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution does not completely serve as beneficial for the people. This national government imposed in the Constitution does not serve to protect the liberties of the people. A government so strong can only seek to control the people in the states’. I oppose the Constitution because it will risk the sovereignty of the states’.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 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

    During the ratification debates of the US Constitution, there was conversation over the necessity of a bill of rights to define people’s rights and limit the government’s powers. Many federalists believed such a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but would weaken the constitution and the people, and give the government powers they should have. Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson each make arguments against a bill of rights. Webster argues that a bill of rights may be irrelevant in future generations, but people will be reluctant to change or add to it. Hamilton believes that the bill of rights is unnecessary because the constitution itself is in terms a bill of rights.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Pure democracy had no cure for the mischiefs of factionalism. Madison argued the problem comes from majority factions gaining popular sovereignty, and using that power to prevent minority factions from participating in gaining power. Madison makes an argument in favor of a larger republic and more centralized government as a way to prevent strong factions. The Federalists believed that the more centralized government would protect individual liberties, and ensure that no faction become too…

    • 1457 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The two groups are the federalist who supported a strong central government, and the anti-federalist who did not. Both groups have distinct ideological differences on how the new document, and government would be structured. The structure between the states and the central government was among the chief problem between the federalists, and the anti-federalist. Many were afraid of the tyranny of the king. The Articles of Confederation…

    • 1295 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With the fight for independence over, members of the newly formed United States sat down to write a set of laws for the nation. However, they were met with growing apprehension from Anti-Federalists, who favored strong state governments as opposed to a powerful central government. This group of commoners was afraid that this new form of government would resort to the monarchist principles of the former British regime, so they called for a protection of individual rights. On the other hand, Federalists were in support of a fortified central government. Both political parties had to reach a compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified, so James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the Constitution.…

    • 1282 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Both ideologies ultimately came down to the Constitution, how it was interpreted and what should come out of the interpretation. One of the largest disagreements between Hamilton and Jefferson was at the root of the Constitution- how literally should the Constitution be taken? Hamilton’s interpretation of the Constitution was loose. He stretched the Constitution wherever he could to give the federal government more power than the state 's government. Jefferson disagreed with that interpretation and counted it by taking it literally, anything that wasn’t written wasn’t constitutional.…

    • 1169 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As a Federalist I believe the people of the United States should ratify the Constitution because we would fall to pieces without it. In Federalist paper 84 they say there is no purpose for a bill of rights because it is dangerous and unnecessary in multiple ways, such as allowing the government to gain more power than it is granted. Also in Federalist paper 51, they talk about the importance of maintaining separate branches and protecting the rights of the people. However, anti-federalists strongly disagree with these claims. There shouldn’t be a bill of rights because including a listing of rights would only make the people feel as if those are their only protected rights, which aren’t their only protected rights.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays