Federalist Argumentative Analysis

The entirety of the Federalist Papers was written on the basis of one singular goal: to ratify the constitution. However, as the Constitution was in the stages of ratification, two distinct groups, the federalists and the anti-federalists formed. One, the federalists, heavily favored the Constitution, arguing that its principles were the ideal base of forming a Country, while the anti-federalists believed that the new changes may threaten liberty. They were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because they feared the national government would be given too much power, and would eventually evolve into a system of government similar to the British monarchy. In this paper, I will examine the analyze the most important arguments written …show more content…
They didn’t want their smaller populations to limit their voice in politics. The large states, the ones who these papers mainly appeal to, are, according to Federalist 62, “not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic”, meaning that the large states are just as anxious and determined as small States to guard against a potential relapse to the system that they were trying so hard to fix. Possibly the most important aspect of the Senate derives from this aspect of the Constitution: the fact that “(n)o law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, or a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states. With this system in place, people in large states and small states alike can feel safe from the fear of lack of liberties because of the system in place to ensure that nothing gets done without the synonymous approval between the people and the states. The House of Representatives represents the wants of the people because they are elected by the people themselves, while the Senate is to represent the wants of the states because of the appointments by state …show more content…
In regard to the issue of impeachment, it’s heavily stressed that the court that conducts this trial must be extremely well qualified and have personal experience with the politicians at hand. Hamilton writes on the second page of his essay, “Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it”. This powerful statement implies that the Senators, with their experience and, are best able to look at a case and some to the most logical conclusion through the arguments given and their background knowledge of the situation. On the same page, he asks the reader what other part of the government would have the true and undoubted confidence in the situation to go through with the process. There is truly no other body that is sufficiently dignified. This has to be reassuring to a hesitant New York, knowing that they will be defended in case of a corrupt high official. They can have confidence knowing that any bad apple will be dealt with accordingly and in a just manner. The model of impeachment also goes back to the historical examples, as he points out the model of Great Britain where in their civilization, “…the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to

Related Documents