People, mostly the Antifederalists, were scared for a document that put such a great amount of power back into a national government; the last thing they wanted was a tyranny. As a matter of fact, the purpose of Federalist No. 51 was to make the audience understand the proposed structure for the United States Government would make liberty possible. James Madison used Federalist No. 51 to expressly defend
“But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.” (Madison, Fed.
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
They feared without it, their rights would not be acknowledged. They felt that the Constitution only favored the wealthy men and their power. The anti federalists were afraid of a strong central government when it came to the government taking over their property and using them. For example, the 3rd amendment states that homeowners should not be obligated to open their homes to soldiers and the soldiers should not be allowed to take over one 's home. This proves that they had to address this issue for something to be done to stop this, they must have been feeling like their lives were
The state of Massachusetts had to rely on another state’s militia to control the rebellion. Many people believed that this event was caused by the Articles of Confederation being weak. The Articles of Confederation was a government system created in a time of haste and was a temporary solution. They caused more problems for America then they did solving them. This constitution focused too much on giving more power to the people and not enough on giving the right amount of power to the government.
US History Test #2 The United States Constitution responded effectively to the weaknesses of the Article of Confederation, and provided important “checks” on power distributed among the three branches within the new, more powerful federal government. The Articles of Confederation left out very important powers that were later added in the United states Constitution like “Checks and Balances” which allow the three branches to almost have equal power. Each of the branches have the power to keep a bill from becoming a law. These “Checks” can also be a bad thing when a government becomes gridlocked. Gridlocked means that the government cannot pass any laws because the branches are all split on their decisions.
The American Revolution, a war fought against a distant and all too powerful government, instilled a fear of centralized governmental power in the United States. The idea of the U.S. constitution sparked a political divide; it encouraged heated debates from those who are known as Federalists, and those who are known as Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, individuals who supported the ratification of the constitution, argued that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and that a strong national government with checks and balances was needed. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that the president would be like a king and that there needs to be a Bill of Rights to protect the people. If I had been alive in the time of this intense debate, I would have voted for the federalist side of the argument.
If the aristocrats cannot trust the common people in a united nation than are we really in a united nation? Here is a quote as evidence from our papers to give you a better understanding of what the aristocrats are doing. The federalists “have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them….
As a result, colonists printed and used their own currency instead of Britain’s. However, as a response, the Parliament passed the currency act, which forbade colonists from the production and usage of their own currency. Expectedly, colonists were outraged and “many Americans interpreted the British government's interference as an infringement of their right to self-government.” Although colonists were not plausible in their belief that their rights had been violated, but nonetheless Britain has cut off yet another way for the colonists to relieve their economic burden and created more hardships and struggles for the colonists. The Currency Act proved to be hindrance, mainly because colonial demand for currency was high due to usage of currency in order to conduct trade. And Britain’s very limited issuing of currency thrwated colonist’s effort to profit.
However Congress can override the presidential veto and are able to impeach the president; they can also reject the president 's appointments. Congress also has the power to refuse and reject to pass laws or provide funding that the president requires. Thus almost everything the president does must be looked over and approved by the two houses of congress. The Framers also feared that the president 's wartime role was too powerful, so they gave Congress a set of checks and balances on the president 's war powers as well. Only Congress has the power to declare war and to pay for wartime