Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

445 Words2 Pages
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…show more content…
Another Example by Robert Yates was Anti-federalist 10#, "Brutus" Argues that an outsized army provides any would-be dictator the suggests that to deprive individual voters of their liberties. As such, solon is pretty clear that an outsized Federal Army (presumably beneath the management of a President, Prime Minister, or King) would draw troopers from the states and will be mobilized to repress the public in any state.As such, the text demonstrates the foundations of the checks and balances later applied to our trendy military, specifically associate degree all-volunteer army with strict limits on terms of service unless throughout a time of war, and whereas the President is that the commander-in-chief, solely Congress will declare war. he transition from the Articles of Confederation to the u. s. Constitution wasn 't a seamless one, and fixing the issues of the Articles of Confederation needed a series of protracted debates each throughout and when the convention. 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
Open Document