In the Bill Of Rights, there our 10 different Amendments. The different Amendments prove the the Anti-federalists feared the strong central government, and desired a limited government, and had protections of basic freedoms. The Bill Of Rights show that they feared a strong central government because Amendment 9 was included into the Bill Of Rights. Anti-federalists feared a strong central government because Amendment 9 talks about how no ones right will be taken away. “Anti-federalist concern that anything not included in the Constitution would not be protected” (Amendment 9). The quote from Amendment 9 proves the Anti-federalists feared a strong central government because, if something was not written in the Constitution then it would …show more content…
Anti-federalist wanted limited government because Amendment 10 talks about how Amendment 10s main job was to control the limited power of the federal government. “This amendment was designed to limit the power of the federal government” (Amendment 10). The quote from Amendment 10 proves that if the Anti-federalist agree to the Bill Of Rights then Amendment 10 will do its job, of keeping limited power of the federal government. Additional, the Anti-federalist desired limited government because Amendment 10 talks about how limited power will keep the king the same and make sure that the state's power our the same “The Tenth Amendment provides each state with powers that our not specifically assigned to the nation's government in the Constitution” (Amendment 10). Anti-federalist desired limited government because Amendment 10 talks about how the Anti-federalists were against getting a new king because they believed with the same king they could keep state's power the …show more content…
Anti-federalist wanted protection of freedom because Amendment 1 talks about how it grants freedom of speech and freedom of many other things that they wanted free. “The First Amendment grants freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and the right to protest” (Amendment 1). The quote from Amendment 1 proves the the Anti-federalist want freedom because with freedom they can write their opinions, petition of their government. Finally the Anti-federalist wanted protection of freedom because Amendment 3 talks about how soldiers are not allowed to go into citizens house without permission. “The third Amendment states that soldiers cannot take over a home during war or peace without the homeowners permission” (Amendment 3). This quote from Amendment 3 proves the the citizens have the right to tell people yes or no because of Amendment 3 proves that and Amendment 1 also proves
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Federalists The Federalists had a better belief on improving the government. They believed in ratification. They knew if you separated the powers of government under three branches, it would protect the rights of people. No one branch has more authority than the other.
In other words, the Constitution, written by educated, rich men, would grant more power to those already in a high position. To add to this, the anti-Federalists stated that Constitution was not secure enough to uphold citizens’ rights. The Constitution would be responsible for the endangerments of human rights such as trial by jury and liberty of the press. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they thought it was an unfitting solution, which would lead the U.S. down the same path of injustice as Great Britain
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective
The article, “The Antifederalists Were Right”, Mises Daily, September 27, 2006 by Gary Galles examines Anti-Federalists’ predictions and if we don’t limit of the federal government it will lead to corruption of power. The Anti-Federalist believed that ratifying the U.S Constitution will create an overbearing central government. Even though the Anti-Federalist lost the debate and was overlooked, their predictions about the result of the Constitution turned out the be true. The Anti-Federalist suggested the Bill of Rights to let the people have rights, however the Constitution was too vague which leads to abuse of power. Some of the vague laws are the “general welfare” which lead to the override limits on delegated federal powers and creating
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
They believed that no bill of rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people. The only reason the Anti-Federalists agreed to help approve the constitution was because of the bill of rights and without the bill of rights the constitution would not have been approved. As it states in the book, “It was largely at Anti-Federalist Insistence that a bill of rights was included in the Constitution” (Sinopoli 33). They want the people to be heard and not
When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.
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
If the Anti-Federalists had not taken a stand, several important elements may have been left out of the Constitution such as the checks and balances that kept each of the divisions of government from obtaining too much control of the government. In addition, limiting terms of certain political offices kept a rotation of not only ideas, but a variety of leaders and representatives for the various states. Finally, without the intervention of the Anti-Federalists, the “Bill of Rights” may not have been added to the governing policies and the protection of individual rights may not have been put into place. The combination of Federalists and Anti-Federalists allowed the creation of a strong national government with a “personal” representation of the individuals it was created
Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
The Anti Federalist The anti-federalist papers were written document about why the idea of federalist is bad. three problems they had with the Constitution were the president as military king, what congress can do; what a state can not, bill of rights. These were only three of the issues I found that the anti-federalist had with the constitution. The first paper I found was the The President As Military King, anti-federalist paper #74.
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
The main arguments that were made opposing the ratification of the U.S. constitution are the power and strength that focus too much on to the federal government that will seem to threaten the states. The Anti-Federalists wanted the power to be equally distributed between the federal and the state. In additionally, the Anti-Federalists believe that the new system will threaten liberties and failed to protect the rights of the citizens. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists hope to add a bill of rights
They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.