Anti Federalists Dbq

Checks and Balances Secondly, the separation of power provides a system of shared powers or checks and balances. By that I mean, that each branch has the power to limit or check the other two. The Constitution gave the most checks to Congress or the legislature. They did this because the framers did not want the president to gain enough power to become a tyrant.

In the 18th Century Federalist and Anti-Federalists went head to head, after the Constitution was created it had to be ratified by the states. There were a number of people at the time that did not want the federal or national government to hold power. These people were the Anti-Federalist, and they wanted sovereign and independent government. The Anti-Federalist had many strong members such as Patrick Henry and George Mason that were afraid if the Constitution was ratified they would lose their power. On the other side the Federalist wanted the ratification as they wanted a large nation.

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.

The Articles of Confederation made up America’s first constitution. This constitution was hastily and poorly made and solved the problem of a lack of government in America. The Articles were designed to limit the government’s power over the citizens. The Articles of Confederation also did not include anything about an individual or a president to guide the country. This was because of the colonists’ past experience with Britain’s king and him having too much power over the people.

James Madison opposes another paper entitled “Federalist Number 51”. This paper addresses issues on liberty, the structure of the government, and the branches of the government. Madison wanted to assure that all branches have the same amount of power and authority in order to gain independence in a particular branch. As citizens, we are supposed to elect the president, the legislators, and the judges. However, the judicial system does not work that way.

The ideals and arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century have many similarities to the Democrats and Republicans of today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first two American political parties, debated over how the country would be shaped. First when developing the Articles of Confederation, then when developing the Constitution, the two parties argued how powerful the central government should be in comparison to the states. Federalists believed in a strong federal government. They believed that to have a country that functions well, there must be one authority that can arbitrate disagreements and make decisions to move the country forward.

This ultimately came down to the two vastly different political parties at the time: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, or Republicans. The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans There were two groups during this time. “One group, led by Secretary There was a vast difference between the two political groups; they had very different beliefs. The term “Federalist” was first used when the United States Constitution was being formed, because they supported the Constitution and wanted a strong central government. As time progressed, they became one of the two first political parties of the nation.

He believed that the rich and educated should be the ones that rule. Because of these thoughts he wanted to raise voting qualifications to make sure that only the well-to-do could make the decisions. To Jefferson agriculture should be the backbone of the nation and trade and manufacturing did not deserve government aid. Like every other idea of Jefferson's, Hamiltons were the opposite. Hamilton wanted a balance of agriculture, trade, and manufacturing.

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” This belief led the Constitutional Convention to drastically limit popular participation in government action. Even the president is not voted in by popular vote, and is rather selected by electorates, who were themselves originally selected by state legislatures. So essentially, the public would vote for the legislator, who would vote for the electorate, who would finally vote for the president. The justices of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, are selected by the president and confirmed by congress rather than voted on.

The Fathers that created the Constitution so the people of the United States would never be ruled by a tyrant. The idea of Federalism separates the power of the government into states issues, and federal issues. The three branches of government keeps from one group/person in the government from getting too much power and having it go to their head. The three branches it makes it impossible to get more power, and also some states are more populated than other, which means that the bigger states will have more representatives and the others. When writing the Constitution the founding father really tried hard to guard against tyranny by using Federalism, three branches, their powers, and that all states have a say in congress.

In 1777 congress adopted the Articles Of Confederation which failed to give the United States an effective government so most the power went to the Federal government. The Articles of Confederation had many problems that would loss of power in the government. The Federal government wanted power in the national government and felt the Constitution would help manage the debt. The Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and wanted limited federal power. Congress had done things that benefited the United States while the second continental congress created a government that lacked power which cause problems.

They had to find the perfect balance for the executive branch. They could not give them too much power or else there would be an opportunity for tyranny and the possibility of another monarchy, but on the other hand, the branch had to possess enough power to do something and make a change. The problem faced with the articles of confederation was a lack of power and this cannot be fixed with more lack of power. Pinckney said, “How far do you intend to go in reducing the power of the states?” (Page 69).

The Anti- Federalists also believed that the United States should just stay with the Articles of Confederation and wanted to prevent creating a federal government that could develop into a very dominant and overpower individual’s rights. They were also afraid that the Constitution would create too much power in the

One of these rough patches was the Articles of Confederation, which taught us that a balance of power is of great importance. We abandoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted a new Constitution because of State powers, and lack of Congressional powers. The fear of a Central Government like Great Britain led The United States away from having such a strong Central Government. So the States were given autonomy to make most decisions & have many powers under early American Government.

In fact, federalists and anti-federalists stood on a totally different ground. Actually, the opposition initially raised from the part of anti-federalists who argued that they could not ratify the Constitution which provided the national government and legislative organs with too much power and decreased the role of local communities. To put it more precisely, they argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expanse of the state governments to the extent that the opinion of the local community could be potentially ignored by the central government under certain circumstances.