Some of the conflicts in the construction of the constitution are the two different plans. The Virginia Plan, formulated by James Madison who advocated the Constitution, set out a three-branch government which composed of a “chamber legislature, a powerful executive, and a judiciary” which was to operate directly on people, not on the state (Roark 208). In this plan, the executive and judiciary could jointly veto the actions of Congress to prevent it from having too much power. An alternative plan was the New Jersey Plan that retained the confederation’s single-house congress with one vote per state. Other conflict that stemmed from the formation of the Constitution was the development of two different groups; the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution and the Antifederalists, those who did not support the Constitution.
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of
The United States struggled under the Articles of Confederation, able to declare war and foreign policy, but unable to collect revenue to sustain its actions. The Constitution was designed to give more power to the national government primarily by empowering it with the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining central banking and financial policies. The national government was able to ask for monies from the states, but was not able to enforce collections of those monies needed to sustain their actions. The thirteen states essentially had recently revolted against Britain and its heavy handed tactics of collecting revenue and were almost immediately being asked to ratify and accept changes that would allow the new government to enforce funding as well. Since most of the framers of the Constitution were considered prominent and financially secure, this left the farmers and trades persons of lower class and wealth with the impression of returning back to a heavy handed government
So, the branches check one another and the people elect the members other than in the judicial branch, whose members are chosen by the executive branch. Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one
Matthew Wong Ms.Yuan History-Duke 12 October 2017 How the Constitution affects tyranny That could happen if the Constitution was not set in place to guard against tyranny. Tyranny occurs when the government has an absolute ruler who rules harshly. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not very powerful and lacked many laws needed leading to a decision to forward a new constitution. The Constitution set up different laws to split the power between different powers so that they would never be ruled by a tyrant once more. As such, they split the power between the state and central government, federalism, so that one government does not have more power than the other.
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
Anti-Federalist also did not want a republic. Anti-Federalist wanted small democracies, which are easy to control. Republics are best for people to voice their voices, better than states can on their own. Anti-Federalist wanted the government to stay local and not be a central government. Most Anti-Federalist lived in rural areas, while Federalist lived in urban areas.
For a globalizing world, people who favor the strong party government suggest that responsible parties are essential for problems such as global warming and terrorism. However, the advantage of party government cannot compensate its disadvantages. First and foremost, the nature of party government would increase the conflicts in American politics. The party government does represent the majority, meaning that there is potential for some minorities and interests groups are not properly represented. This would lead to further conflicts in politics.
The Federalist party was comprised of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, George Washington, Charles C. Pinckney, DeWitt Clinton and Rufus King the paramount objective set by federalist Members was a fiscally sound and nationalistic government which promoted the system of checks and balances laid out in the US Constitution for the three branches of government. The federalist Party can be perceived as elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections, however, the acceptance of these notions didn’t escape Ramifications as they lost the support of the general population due to their favoritism of the exclusive class group. The Federalists despite their invalidation etched a lasting legacy in America politics in the form of a strong federal government with a sound financial base and they decisively shaped Supreme Court policy for another three decades through the person of Chief Justice John
Federalism is restricted that governments decide to take care of the issue of administering substantial populaces and different societies. Federalism lives up to expectations by separating its power and responsibility, instead of a unitary government, in which the focal government controls everything. The Anti-Federalists contradicted the US 's ratification Constitution; however they never composed effectively over each of the thirteen states, thus needed to battle the ratification at each state tradition. Their awesome achievement was in driving the first Congress under the new Constitution to set up a bill of rights to guarantee the freedoms the Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution disregarded. I support the Federalism in light of the fact
In the first paragraph of the Federalist Paper 10, Madison explains what he is trying to do with the constitution. His main concerns were to establish a government that was capable of controlling violence and damage caused by factions. He believes that as long as men have different opinions, different amounts of property and wealth, then there will always be factions. When Madison says faction, he means a group of people that have some strong common passion or interest. He believe that the most common and durable source of a faction is the unequal distribution of property.
The smaller states thought this was unfair because they thought they would just me controlled by the bigger states, and they would have no say in anything. The bigger states thought equal representation would be unfair because they wouldn’t be able to represent as many people that lived in the state. 2. The Virginia Plan suggested a strong national government. It said that two governments would go into affect, individual state governments and the national governments.
Madison began discussing the most famous Federalist papers by saying that one of the most grounded contentions for the Constitution is the way that it sets up an administration well-appointed for controlling the violence and harm created by factions. Madison characterizes groups as gatherings of individuals who assemble to secure and advance their exceptional monetary hobbies and political feelings. According to the text, Madison has only two ways to control a faction. The first was to remove its reasons and the second way was to control its outcomes. The first was did not seem plausible but there were two ways to remove its reasons of a faction, to destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, and etc.
The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.
While the federalist and anti-federalist had opposing views in a functioning government system, some crucial points were agreed upon. They both knew in order for the United States to succeed as a new country, they needed better stability and a sense of unity between the colonies. The Articles of Confederation, on both sides, were thought of as a weak system of governmental control. A central government appealed to both sides, but as to how much power it would possess was still at a still point. Federalist wanted a strong central government, whereas anti-federalists were afraid of it seeming too much like the British monarchy.