A Strong Central Government Pros And Cons Essay

507 Words3 Pages

When the Founding Fathers were planning the country, each one had different ideas on what the country should be like. Some favored a strong central government, others saw that strength in the states would make for a better government. Most of the time, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are seen as the two biggest influences, and opposing views on the role of the federal government. Jefferson opted for a weaker central government, with stronger states and more individual rights, while Madison favored a strong central government, and weaker states. Given that the country was founded on ideas of liberty and democracy, Thomas Jefferson is the more correct of the two. Madison represented the party known as the Federalists. He was an elitist who believed that the most fit to rule would rise into the national …show more content…

As the name implies, this party was quite the opposite of the Federalists. The DR party was populist, meaning they believed in representing the common people. This party believe that there should not be a strong central government, and that power should be mostly held by the states. This strength of this system would be that it would allow states to conduct their own business, and be able to more appropriately and quickly solve matters of local and state importance, while keeping freedoms that could be taken by a central government. Both of these systems have their pros and cons, and as such a mix of both is preferable. The idea of the country is in the name, the United States of America, and as such we do need a central government to truly be united. This central government would need certain powers, which were granted by the Constitution. However, the world has changed a lot since then. The Constitution granted the central government the power to do whatever is, “necessary and proper,” but that vague wording has allowed the federal government to grow over the

Show More
Open Document