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
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. Federalists sought to reform the government system by implementing an executive power to act as a mediator for states so that no specific state had more power than the other and so that critical deeds can be executed without problem, such as collecting taxes. Anti-Federalists wanted to stray away from an authoritative power, fearing that a powerful and distant government would not serve for the interests and needs of the citizens. They also complained that the Constitution failed to guarantee individual liberties in
Which means there would be a legislative branch, executive branch, and judiciary branch within the federal government. Document B claims “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one or few...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny… Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” Having separate and distinct branches within the government limits the power accumulated so that it doesn’t become overpowered. Each branch is made up of different powers and duties. Since they all have equal amounts of power and can check one another, it allows for there not to be too much gain in a single branch. Furthermore, just like guard one, if a branch were to obtain too much power, the other two would be able to call attention to the problem and stop it before it gets out of hand.
"Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791. The Bill of Rights were derived from the English Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers and the public felt that the constitution didn’t set up enough boundaries for the government, they felt that the government would assume too much power and take away the “Natural Rights” of the human.
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.
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.
During the Revolutionary era, the birth of the U.S. Constitution gave way to the political divide between the two polarizing philosophies of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After the economic pitfalls and decentralization the Articles of Confederation had left behind, action was taken to ameliorate its failures. With the creation of the Federalist party in by founder Alexander Hamilton, its members advocated for a stronger national government and defended the validity of the Constitution’s ratification. Contrarily, the Constitution was met with skepticism on behalf of the Anti-Federalists, who believed it would undermine state sovereignty and infringe upon their human rights. The two parties hailed from different socioeconomic backgrounds,
For example, if you were a dad with two kids, you would give each kid certain privileges. The oldest would get more privileges and the youngest would get less privileges. But also both of them should be equal and one brother should not be powerful than the other in privileges. This is a great example on how tyranny was avoided between the federal government’s power and the state’s power. All of these ideas put together equals a well balanced government with not to much power and not a tyranny.
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
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.
As tensions in Great Britain grew economically and politically, the American colony declared themselves an independent nation. Gaining their independence was significant, however, keeping it would be the challenge. The Americans knew a stable federal republic was essential to remaining independent, thus they created the Constitution. Although, the creation of the Constitution and the equality it ensues a controversial issue, the Constitution did not fulfil the job it was designed to do. The document did not establish a fair government.
Patrick Henry was one of those famous powerful figures, patriots, who provided support for the antifederalists. Anti Federalists were in debt and they feared a strong central government who would make them pay-off their debts. They thought that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and there was no bill of rights, thus, they opposed the ratification of the constitution. As shown on Document G, even in a political system, with checks and balances, a certain branch can be too powerful, which can lead to tyranny of the common people. This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval.
Also the Federalist believe having a national constitution meaning that there is a better balance of laws. The federalist want a New Constitution because Federalist want a fresh start and want to avoid tyranny. In my opinion the Anti-Federalist is the weaker government between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist do not want states to have their own government. Not having a government in charge of each individual state