Federalist And The Anti-Federalists

1772 Words 8 Pages
In the year 1787, there were two major different political parties that were involved in the ratification of the American Constitution. The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist; they both had very strong views regarding the welfare of the country and its citizens. The Federalist who wanted to impose a stronger government had the greatest ideas and impact on the ratification of the American’s Constitution. They didn’t want the idea of having any loose interpretation of anything, they wanted everything to be clear and done by the book, they were afraid that if anything was left up to interpretation, America would face many challenges, and would never be a whole as it is right now, and surely would lose its freedom. The Anti-Federalist was created …show more content…
The separation of power is made up of three branches; which are Legislative (congress) branch, Executive (presidential) branch and Judicial (Supreme Court) branch. However, it’s difficult because checks and balance must occur. For instants the president can pardon whoever they want, and may veto in other words block laws that is passed by Congress. But Congress can still pass laws if and when a vote of two-thirds of both houses succeeds. The Supreme Court can check Congress by stating that a law unconstitutional. The power is balanced by the fact that the Supreme Court members are appointed by the president and those appointments have to be approved by Congress. This process is affective but it is hard to amend because America has only one constitution. This is known as the checks and balances systems; this is the ways the Framers ensure that the power will not completely fall into the hands of one government, that no branch has the ultimate power over the other two. For example, in our current law, the congress makes the law, the president has the power the power to approve it, do nothing, or veto it; the congress ca again overrides it by 1/3 of majority vote. The Supreme court has the power to review the constitutionality of the …show more content…
Article II, section 1. The framers gave the president power to be the commander in chief of military responsibilities, but only if they were authorized by the congress; Article II, section 2,” The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.” In the Federalist No. 74, Hamilton tries to explain why the framers decided to make the president commander in chief. The direction of war “most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single head.” In the Federalist No 69, Hamilton gives a more modest definition of what he believes a commander in chief powers are; according to him, the office “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the

Related Documents