Explain What Objections To The Constitution Were Held By Such Anti Federalists

Matthew Wong Ms.Yuan History-Duke 12 October 2017 How the Constitution affects tyranny That could happen if the Constitution was not set in place to guard against tyranny. Tyranny occurs when the government has an absolute ruler who rules harshly. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not very powerful and lacked many laws needed leading to a decision to forward a new constitution. The Constitution set up different laws to split the power between different powers so that they would never be ruled by a tyrant once more. As such, they split the power between the state and central government, federalism, so that one government does not have more power than the other.

This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.

Hamilton and James Madison joined forces to persuade Congress to send a delegation to convince Rhode Island to change its mind. They issued a report that argued that Congress needed financial autonomy and also that Congress needed to be able to put laws in place that would override those of individual states. Virginia 's rescission of its ratification ended the Rhode Island negotiations. Hamilton was frustrated at the failure of the establishment of a national funding system and at the weakness of the central government and so he drafted a call to revise the Articles of Confederation, which contained many features of the future US Constitution. These features included a strong federal government that

Without the written rights the government could take them away. People were scared of a new Constitution that gave the Federal Government too much power and that they would end up with the type of government they just fought to separate from. They worried that the Washington government would abuse the people’s rights just like the British did.

In fact, if the Electoral College system was not in the Constitution, it would undoubtedly be removed due to it being unconstitutional, because using the electoral votes violates the principle of one-person, one-vote. (Black, 2012) So, while it is clear that the Electoral College was set up to ensure all states have a voice, it now seems to have the ability to take away the voice of the people. It is necessary to look at our voting process and make the necessary changes needed to ensure the process of electing our President represents the voice of the people. By switching to a majority vote we ensure that the voice of all people are not only heard, but are represented equally, which is how it should be under the one-person, one-vote

Their opposing party was the Democratic-Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson and former Anti-Federalists. They were for states’ rights and a loose constitution interpretation.They were used to the norms of society; therefore, they were not ready for the Federalists to change the nation. The nation had just gotten out of the Revolutionary War and gained their independence; therefore, they believed that the Federalists would lead them back to the crown. This was the major reason that the Jeffersonians had a strong opposition towards the Federalists. After the

In other words, the Federalists were worried they would lose their already set status when it came to society and the political world. Federalists were strict believers in what is stated in the constitution and questioned the legality in purchasing the Louisiana Territory. The Federalists believed that the Louisiana Purchase would only harm the community, not help them so they were against the purchase of the land. Jefferson, when contemplating the purchase of the land, needed to take what his people felt into consideration. He polled the representatives with the treaty passing with a 24-7

Congressmen aren’t elected through a slate of people voted by citizens to vote for citizens, so why is the president? If the government is truly to be by the people, why can this happen? If the answer is, it isn’t, that’s not the way the founders intended it, then we shouldn’t use a hastily created system made by people who came from a time when the common man was illiterate. It was a system created because the founders believed that the average person couldn’t truly be trusted electing the leader, so they created a system to separate their decisions from how the president is picked. Whether or not the founders were

The Founding Fathers and the public felt that the constitution didn’t set up enough boundaries for the government, they felt that the government would assume too much power and take away the “Natural Rights” of the human. The Bill of Rights was set up to make sure the public felt safe and to make sure the government couldn’t abuse their power and turn it into a communist state or a dictatorship. America and our Founding Fathers based our Bill of Rights off the English Bill of Rights, so naturally there will be a lot of similarities between the two. Much like the Amendments in the English Bill of

Federalism is restricted that governments decide to take care of the issue of administering substantial populaces and different societies. Federalism lives up to expectations by separating its power and responsibility, instead of a unitary government, in which the focal government controls everything. The Anti-Federalists contradicted the US 's ratification Constitution; however they never composed effectively over each of the thirteen states, thus needed to battle the ratification at each state tradition. Their awesome achievement was in driving the first Congress under the new Constitution to set up a bill of rights to guarantee the freedoms the Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution disregarded. I support the Federalism in light of the fact