Examples Of Thomas Jefferson's Efficacy Of The Constitution

The debate was during the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists believed that it gave too much power to the federal government. While both sides agreed that something different from the Articles of Confederation had to be created, many were uncomfortable with how far the Constitution went, and worried that the states would lose their sovereignty. The Federalists supported the Constitution, because they believed that the nation could only succeed with a strong national government.

During the late 1700’s there was a great debate over how the country should be run. Also there was controversy over this new Constitution and how it would work. Two sides slowly emerged. The Federalists who believed in a federal system and this new constitution. Their opposition, the Anti-Federalist, believed in a weak central government and had plenty of issues with this new Constitution.

Overall, the British government was a tyrannical rule in which the ruling and decisions were all up to one person, King George III. Since the United States had previously already had to go through a terrifying event that was the British government, the Anti Federalists wanted to learn from their mistakes and avoid a government that would possess unmanageable power which would lead to corruption within the system and oppression for the people under the rule. Secondly, the Anti Federalists had also debated that there was a lacking of a Bill of Rights, which would protect the freedom of the people and make sure that the government would not overstep boundaries. With the current path that the Constitution was following the Anti Federalists feared the downfall of the United States, with all three of the branches of the new central government threatening all of the beliefs and ideals that the Anti Federalists had followed. Not only was there a lacking of power and representation for the people in the state there was also a lack of representation in the Central government for the people in order to speak out against the ratification of the constitution.

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.

At this time, the American people stand divided. On one side, there are the federalists. They want a central government with limited powers and to ratify the constitution without addition. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the anti-federalists. They wish for power to be given to the states instead of a central government and to set the new constitutional rights in stone.

The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.

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.

“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.

(1).” This group did not the Constitution did not properly state the rights and powers of the three branches of government, states’ rights, etc. In order to please the Anti-federalists, the Preamble was put into place to allow American citizens know the central government’s rights, and states’ rights. Lecture 15 “Questions to Consider #1”: In what ways does the modern American economy resemble the plan set out in Hamilton’s three great reports?

Central government did not have the power the federalists wish it would have had under the Articles. Due to the constitution, the central government was too strong in the eyes of the anti-federalists. The Constitution didn’t provide any power for the states and individual freedom. Anti-federalists were scared that if a president was reelected, he would act more like a king. Many people's ideas contributed on the Debate Over the

The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.

The founding fathers wrote these documents in a time period with entirely different influences regarding how a government should be structured, such as a focus on avoiding imperial influences and monarchies, and one that was structured during a constant fear of war (Berkin 41). Additionally, the meanings of these documents are continually purposely misconstrued, and so should be regarded with caution as to the ways in which the writings can be utilized for personal gain in times where the original intentions are somewhat moot. Overall, however, the government is still one that draws its authority from the consent of the governed, so those who are elected to represent the citizens of the United States should keep in mind the true desires of its

Federalists and Anti-Federalists both have an arguable amount of supporters. I am in favor of the Anti-Federalist point of view. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts. They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen. In addition the Constitution allows the government too much power,does not provide for a republican government, and it also does not include a Bill of Rights, which is vital.

The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states. "to raise and support armies at pleasure, in addition in peace as in war, and their management over the militia, tend not solely to a consolidation of the govt. , however the destruction of liberty..." a stronger central government would higher shield everybody and is additional for the good

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is