Federalist Vs Constitution

1163 Words 5 Pages
The American government that we have today was based off the proposals of the Federalists who wrote essays to persuade those who were in opposition, that the proposed Constitution would be quite beneficial. The authors have provided solutions to what made the old Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, fail; as well as, discussing how the structure of the government would be like if the proposed Constitution were to be implemented. James Madison especially, discussed about the importance of controlling factions and how a well functioning government should be structured; which is explained through Federalist papers 10 and 39. The ideas in these two essays are the core of what American government is supposed to be; it states that the people …show more content…
Constitution. The Federalist provided many essays that strengthened their claim that a newly proposed U.S. Constitution would be beneficiary, one of which would the essay number 45. According to Blunt (1990), with the implementation of the Articles of Confederation, America could be depicted as “a nation without an executive, one beset with the problems of a decentralized and uncontrollable system” (para. 2). Madison wrote in Federalist paper No. 45 that the American government should have the enough authority to protect the public good because it would be disconcerting if the second U.S. Constitution would repeat the same mistake that the Articles of Confederation brought up. If the national government did not have the power to maintain and control conflict between states then there is no point to having a federal government. Another key point that can be described as a strength for the proposal of the U.S. Constitution would be Alexander Hamilton providing six provisions that would protect the citizens of the United States, but as well denying the concept of a Bill of Rights. Hamilton stated that the concept of a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous. An example that affirms Hamilton’s distrust of the Bill of Rights can be made in terms of lawyers in the United States. Lawyers generally operate in ways that go against historical accuracy …show more content…
Constitution a reality, there are also weaknesses in their arguments. In Federalist paper No. 10, Madison describes factions as being impossible to eradicate because it is just the nature of man to form factions. In addition, Madison also states that with a representative form of government, the largest faction will dominate the government, which will result in a lower amount of conflict between factions. A big weakness in Madison’s claim is that he “failed to foresee the calamitous impact of the system of slavery” (Knott, 2011, para. 2). Madison failed to envision a moment in time where the larger faction dominated the country and those who were minority factions rebelled in opposition of the ideals of the larger faction. In the case of slavery, where the majority and minority factions were fighting against each other to either continue or end slavery. The American Civil War is a moment in history where a larger faction was dominating and conflict was not reduced, but in fact, erupted into a civil war. Furthermore, Madison also described how the structure of American government should be in Federalist paper No. 51. Madison explains that the government shall be divided government with different powers and each section of government has the ability to check the actions of the other sections, to deem them unconstitutional or not. Even though this concept of separation of powers and

Related Documents