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 problem was that the existing government, under the Articles of Confederation wasn't doing the job. It was too weak. There overall goal was to create a strong-central government without letting anyone gaining much power. Federalism Federalism is a compound republic, meaning it is made up of two governments. It is between two distinct governments which are subdivided into separate departments.
Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 by Robert Yates explains, “When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not just for us, but for everyone that comes after us. “ This relates the constitution to a building. Buildings are supposed to stand for ages, but without a sturdy foundation they will quickly be demolished. The constitution is not only designed for us, but also for our posterity so without a firm foundation, such as a bill of rights, it will quickly be abolished.
In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.
After the Declaration of Independence in 1787, the Federal Government turned to the creation of the Constitution in which delegates from 13 states convened to make compromises on their beliefs for the betterment of a nation. Although the Bill of Rights was initially not a part of the Constitution, the Federalists thought that it was crucial to ensure ratification of the Constitution. This ratification was one of the main reasons why the Bill of Rights needed to be added. Federalists feared a strong, central government, and created a Bill of Rights in order to prevent government abuse. Others believed that a dominating Government could prohibit rights in the future, which would not necessarily be expressed in the Bill of Rights.
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.
They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people. The
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.
The main debate was about individual rights. Originally, the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. Anti-federalists insisted that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution to expressly grant freedoms to the country. On the other hand, federalist James Madison believed the Constitution was enough, and adding a bill of rights was unnecessary. As southern states did with slavery, antifederalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a 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
The Anti-Federalists were correct that a Bill of Rights was necessary to guard citizens from tyranny. To begin with, the Constitution is the framework for the organization of the U.S government and for the relationship the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the nation. When the United States was being born, the Founders adopted the first constitution to the nation called, Article of Confederation which created a central government that did not have much power and most of the power were given to the state government. However, the Article of Confederation was not working because there was no chief executive, no court system, and most important that was the central government could not force a state to pay taxes.
Us federalists believe that the Constitution is fine as is. The constitution does not need a Bill of Rights that will only limit the rights of people rather than protect them. We believe the constitution is required in order to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution gave us. Many influential figures also take our side in this situation such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, as well as James Madison. To go along with many of this nation’s leader supporting our point of view there are also many others that feel the same way.
Federalism was adopted as one of the solutions to avoid tyranny as it creates a strong central government and state governments. They share some powers such as the creation of taxes, borrowing money, making and enforcing laws, and setting up courts. The central government and the state governments have their own powers. There are subdivisions or departments in charge of specific areas. To avoid control of power, both governments control each other and also control themselves.
We need to guarantee the basic rights of the citizens of this country. These rights would not limit the rights of the people, but set a base line of what they are already guaranteed. With the broad powers that are being proposed for the federal government, individuals need protection of their rights. The Federalist will argue that a Bill of Rights would be redundant and therefore unnecessary, because of the powers of the government will be limited and specifically assigned. They think since there will be no power assigned to the government that could restrict the liberty of the press, that no restriction could occur.
