Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

781 Words4 Pages
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government. One that powers would be split between an executive, and legislature, and judicial branch. This response would allow for the passing of the Constitution with the compromise of adding the Bill of Rights. The checks and balances system is discussed extensively in Federalist 51. Written by James Madison says “for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments as laid down in the Constitution…essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each…show more content…
It was not perfect. Flaws in the weak central government, and weak state governments proved problem some. The inability to displace riots, collect taxes, and a functioning army, made effective governance nearly impossible. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist both supported arguments for their ideological differences. Mainly, differing on who would assume most of the power in the governing structure. Numerous authors explained their reasoning, and tried to show the people what implications could arise. After numerous debates, and conflicts a compromise had been reached. A central government with separation of powers, and checks and balances on those powers placed the power in the central government. The Constitution would also provide powers to the state governments. The Federalist reached a compromise to allow the Bill of Rights to be added. Thus, making allowing the passing of a new Constitution. The two distinct ideological groups were able to find common
Open Document