Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalist Debate

443 Words2 Pages
THESIS: The Federalist versus anti-federalist debate is still a major part of American law making. One example of this conflict can be seen in the modern day with the state versus federal government argument on immigration. The basic federalist and anti-federalist ideas can be seen on page 185 of the hush textbook. On page 185 there is a chart of Jefferson's and Hamilton's ideas. Jefferson and other Federalists believed in a strong central government, a government run by the elite, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, Hamilton and the anti-federalists believed in a small national government, the sharing of power between federal and state governments, an inclusive democracy, and a strict interpretation of the constitution.…show more content…
She states that “Alabama's immigration law is often billed as the toughest in the country. In recent years, other states have passed similar legislation intended to curtail illegal immigration, at times running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.” This represents a kind of anti-federalist idea found in modern times. This is an anti-federalist idea, as Antifederalists believe that the states should have more power than the federal government, which would happen if each state was allowed to individually write and implement their set of immigration laws. Elliot also says in her writing, “Civil rights advocates say laws like Alabama's have created a host of problems, while neglecting to really address the question of illegal immigration. "They do infinitely more harm than good," says Tomas Lopez, an attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of several groups that have sued to stop the state laws.” This could be used as a federalist argument against Antifederalist values, as this quote is saying that Alabama's law is bad and wouldn't work for all 50 states which was what the Federalists
Open Document