Our great nation has just begun, but a crossroad has already been hit. Our country has been through great trials as of late, but we let disputes within divide us. We must look upon our future this day, and decide for ourselves what the best route to take is. If we look back on our previous struggles, we realize that the Articles on Confederation, while still a very good idea, is flawed. Many in this nation seek to keep some of the flawed parts into the future, but this cannot continue. The best path to take moving forward is the Federalist path. While a good many men, including myself, believe the Federalist thinking is the right thinking, the Anti-Federalists undoubtedly have a few good points about the newly written constitution. In Richard
…show more content…
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates,” as read in the Federalist No. 51. The Federalists believe in a strong central government that is final in authority. This is necessary in maintaining a large country, and keeping it safe. The Federalists also are very much about limited the strong government to keep it in check. We see this also in Federalist No. 51: “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others … But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” With the Federalist version of government, they keep its strength in check by dividing the power into three branches, each with its own jobs. Through checks and balances, each branch holds each other accountable and can veto an action of another …show more content…
One of which is how each state is represented in the Congress. According to the Anti-Federalist New Jersey plan, each state will get a single vote no matter the population. This of course benefits the smaller states who wish to get as much say as the much larger ones, but the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. If there are more people in a state, then they should get more say. This is why the Federalist “Virginia Plan” has a bicameral legislature, that is, two houses to make the laws. In each of these houses, the number of representatives from each state is determined by its population. This system is fairer for all involved. Another debatable point is the Anti-Federalist stance on the power of the state governments. They believe that state governments should have the most power, more like the previous articles of confederation. We see their concern in Brutus I: “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates,” as read in the Federalist No. 51. The Federalists believe in a strong central government that is final in authority. This is necessary in maintaining a large country, and keeping it safe. The Federalists also are very much about limited the strong government to keep it in check. We see this also in Federalist No. 51: “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others … But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” With the Federalist version of government, they keep its strength in check by dividing the power into three branches, each with its own jobs. Through checks and balances, each branch holds each other accountable and can veto an action of another …show more content…
One of which is how each state is represented in the Congress. According to the Anti-Federalist New Jersey plan, each state will get a single vote no matter the population. This of course benefits the smaller states who wish to get as much say as the much larger ones, but the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. If there are more people in a state, then they should get more say. This is why the Federalist “Virginia Plan” has a bicameral legislature, that is, two houses to make the laws. In each of these houses, the number of representatives from each state is determined by its population. This system is fairer for all involved. Another debatable point is the Anti-Federalist stance on the power of the state governments. They believe that state governments should have the most power, more like the previous articles of confederation. We see their concern in Brutus I: “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a