This excerpt is giving a sturdy explanation on the topic of tyranny,and how it gave us a clarification on how tyranny is being stopped by overpowering the king. Critics also argued that the king or queen could create laws that applied to only some people and not others, and that unelected officials could make decisions that negatively affected citizens. The people were exhausted and started to realize that they wanted to overthrow the king themselves. Critics of the monarch read and discussed what tyranny meant in order to argue for their notion of the rule of law.
Patrick Henry was one of those famous powerful figures, patriots, who provided support for the antifederalists. Anti Federalists were in debt and they feared a strong central government who would make them pay-off their debts. They thought that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and there was no bill of rights, thus, they opposed the ratification of the constitution. As shown on Document G, even in a political system, with checks and balances, a certain branch can be too powerful, which can lead to tyranny of the common people. This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval.
After the Revolutionary War, there are some issues, that would be related to the weakness of the democracy. Some would say that the weaknesses of the federal government was a weakness of democracy. Then others would say, the demand for populist laws in many states. For the most part, these two issues caused a lot of problems and so the people wanted to write a new constitution, which would replace the Articles of Confederation. Some of the people felt, The Articles of Confederation, made the national government too weak because of democracy.
It makes me wonder the same thing about the judges, the lawyers, the Supreme Court and even the government itself. Who said we wanted this type of government and it was the best solution? Which brings us back to the question, “Are prisons obsolete?” When I read Angela Davis’ book, Are Prisons Obsolete? , I was scared that it actually was, only because it is not fair to the workers (to an extent).
After America’s victory in the Revolutionary War, the people were very fearful of being under another strong national government. So in order to secure a weak central government, the Congress of 1777 created the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles worked too well by creating a weak central government. This led the nation into chaos, which forced states’ hand by revising their government. After the Articles of Confederation, America gained the United States Constitution, which is the government we are under today.
They believed that this government could provide the stability and security against violent outrages. The foil of these people were the Antifederalist. The Antifederalists offered three objections: that the Congress had conspired under a “veil of mystery” to create a new form of government, that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights, and that the new system of government resembled and monarchy and that violated the principle of liberty that guided the American Revolution. They also pointed that the voters will not directly
This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.
If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue. Who will decide that the public’s demand that the president and the government act to keep them safe is now excessive? If security requires America to shape the world by its direct military efforts, how
The Federalist party was comprised of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, George Washington, Charles C. Pinckney, DeWitt Clinton and Rufus King the paramount objective set by federalist Members was a fiscally sound and nationalistic government which promoted the system of checks and balances laid out in the US Constitution for the three branches of government. The federalist Party can be perceived as elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections, however, the acceptance of these notions didn’t escape Ramifications as they lost the support of the general population due to their favoritism of the exclusive class group. The Federalists despite their invalidation etched a lasting legacy in America politics in the form of a strong federal government with a sound financial base and they decisively shaped Supreme Court policy for another three decades through the person of Chief Justice John
Patrick Griffin, a professor at the University of Notre Dome contributed in the book Jeffersonian America: Between Sovereignty and Anarchy. Griffin explained the aftermath of the war and how anarchy and sovereignty in the United States grew within the government. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist accepted the violence only at their convenience, but what was not acceptable was going “against their fellow party supporters” (13). Griffin argued that the only way the United States was able to be developed, was through corruption within the government and giving benefits to the political parties. While on the other hand William Hogeland author of “The Whiskey Rebellion”, analyzed the success Hamilton and the federalist had on the economy, as well as how Whiskey changed America.
The question of why Americans supported or feared the Constitution of 1787 is imperative for it provides further insight into the founding of the United States. The young republic of America had several reasons to strongly support or fear the Constitution of 1787. To many, it would provide stability, but to others, it would take away their individual rights. Those who supported the Constitution (generally the Federalists) felt it was enough—no need for a Bill of Rights. Those who feared the Constitution (generally the Antifederalists) demanded a Bill of Rights to protect citizens.
In 1787 many important people, like Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock, had different views and beliefs on ratifying the Constitution. This lead to two groups forming the federalists and the anti federalists. The federalist believed that the Constitution should be ratified for the sake of a strong government, while the anti federalist believed that the Constitution should not be ratified because of the lack of individual rights. Specifically, the antifederalists point of view was more reasonable towards the public due to the fact the anti federalists wanted power within each state and not the central government. One reason why the anti federalist’s point of view is more sensible than the federalists is because the anti federalist thought
Before the famous Constitution became published on September 17, 1787, there was a huge democracy over it since some people supported it (federalists), while others opposed it (anti-federalists). Basically the main arguments used by the Anti-Federalists in the discussion of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Constitution offered too much power to the federal government and that the rights of the people were not promised through a Bill of Rights. In order to get their words out, they had ratified convections for the thirteen states. They choose to go to Pennsylvania first because of its size, influence, and wealth.
The Federalist Papers v Democracy Were the Federalist papers anti-democratic? Were the founders against the conception of democracy as we now understand it, or was it an issue of definition assignment? What did the terms Republican, and democratic mean to the founders? Knowing what definitions certain words held during the founding era is essential to understanding the thought process of our forefathers. Another issue to consider is whether or not the Constitution itself is democratic.
Constitution DBQ Around the time of the ratification of the American Constitution, there were some American citizens that wanted the government to have more power, and there were others that thought the people should be in control of the government. These two groups called themselves Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted more government power, and the Anti-Federalists did not.