Federalists Vs Anti Federalism Essay

Good Essays
After the American War for Independence, the Americans were under the control of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation set up a weak national government. This system was highly ineffective because the creators of it did not want to restrict the rights of the people as the tyrannical British leaders had in the past. Certain events, such as Shays’ Rebellions, stressed the need for a stronger centralized government. In place of the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution, the supporters of the Constitution were called the Federalists and the people against it were called the Anti-Federalists. However, the term Federalist and Anti-Federalist changes prior to and after the ratification of the US Constitution. …show more content…
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. 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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    The Federalists strategy was to strengthen the economic ties with Britain. They wanted to settle the pre-war claims and debts with them before anything got out of hand. The Democratic-Republicans did not agree with this treaty because they believed nothing was accomplished and they did not want to become allies with Britain after they just broke free from them. The point of view of this treaty was that the Federalists wanted to…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It became clear soon after the Articles of Confederation were implemented that the document had certain flaws that weakened the newly created United States. A new document, the Constitution, was drafted to replace the Articles. Many people supported the Constitution, but some disagreed with it. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists provided valuable insight into the creation of the Constitution. Some of the arguments presented by the anti-Federalists were that it lacked a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee citizens freedoms; that the strong central government would be unable to govern such a large territory; and that the government that was established was too close to the British system they had just overcome.…

    • 1330 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

    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

    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

    Federalists generally loosely viewed the constitution, and disregarded the need for smaller state legislatures. In document D, Daniel Webster criticizes Madison’s military policy, using the Constitution to prove his point that it is unconstitutional to draft men and children for militia. Webster altered his political views in order to bring opposition the Democrat Republicans. His speech solidifies the idea that parties change their views when they have power. Adding on to the reverse of political views, document E discussed the Hartford Convention, which was a meeting of the New England Federalists to debate on-going matters.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 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

    The primary argument of the Anti-Federalists was based on the idea of limited government, which could be accomplished in a few ways. Firstly, the Anti-Federalists did not agree on a form of government but they did agree that the federal government should not grow. They argued that, with a larger national government, the liberties and freedoms of each individual would be placed at a greater risk, because a large government could not manage,due to time, the local issues of each state while also managing the greater issues at hand. It was also believed that a republican government could not have power over such a large society, because in history, only smaller governments were able to hold steady…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    III" and he goes on to note that that the framers stressed the separateness of the branches, as opposed to their independence. The majority in this case is primarily concerned that allowing the President to possess an unqualified ability to classify information would place him outside of the rule of law, and therefore outside the scope of either Congress or the court. Such a pernicious privilege would necessarily contravene the balance of power in the federal government, creating an Executive that could not be…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The issue with letting Parliament decide on these matters is that Parliament is under pressure from the majority, which can lead to enacting draconian measures against who they fear is the enemy, which is usually a minority with little protection . The courts are removed from this pressure and can question the need for new polices that Parliament may introduce which can infringe on human rights . The legitimacy of the judiciary comes from that fact that it has to have rational arguments, its decisions must come from a legal authority and the judiciary is independent from politics ensuring an unbiased opinion . This gives legitimacy to judicial decisions against unjust laws passed by the government. This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals.…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays