ipl-logo

The Anti-Federalists: Competition Between Interest Groups

522 Words3 Pages

The Anti-Federalists believed competition between interest groups would make governing impossible and could lead to anarchy. However, historical evidence shows the Anti-Federalists were clearly wrong. Although interesting groups may invade others’ rights, they are good because no one voice should rule and having them allows government to address various needs of the people, as long as laws are put in place to control them. Factions are good, because no one voice should have all the power and people should have freedom to express their opinions on government policy. The Anti-Federalists were afraid different view points would cause government to stop functioning properly and to lose power. We may not always agree with the opinions or methods of factions, but giving citizens that freedom allows for greater diversity and insight to our nation. People should have options instead of just blindly following the government without having any say. The opinions and ideas of the people as a whole are what guides America. Interest groups can express their thoughts, as long as they are under control and not dominant, governing is still possible. …show more content…

In the BYU library, there is now a self checkout option instead of going to the front desk, because students raised their voice, and BYUSA listened. This is a reflection of democracy, by listening to groups, government gather many opinions to inform legislation. They form laws based on the people. Interest groups are a way for government to get feedback from their policies, because it gives them a new perspective to look at their performance. This helps government to be more aware of the economic and social changes in the society. People are pleased when their voices are heard, because they feel government recognized their

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    433 Words  | 2 Pages

    The anti-federalist wanted to improve the equality in the government this is clear with this quote "As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". The anti-federalist believed that the constitution needs the bill of rights to protect people individual rights. The federalist were a strong central government .They wanted a strong leader and they wanted the separation of powers as stated in the federalist quote. "It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

    Read More

  • Federalist 10 Dbq

    243 Words  | 1 Pages

    Perhaps the most famous Federalist paper, Federalist 10, starts off by saying that one of the biggest arguments that favors the Constitution is that it creates a government suited to minimize the harm caused by factions. Faction, in this case, is defined as a group of people whether a minority or majority based on class, race, and profession that all share a common interest. It was inevitable that factions would occur and perhaps the defining characteristic was the unequal distribution of property. This would ultimately lead the poor without property to become the majority in a “tyranny of the masses.” Madison believed that there were two solutions in preventing majority factions, 1) Remover the causes, and 2) Control the effects.

    Read More

  • Note On Speeches Debating The Consitution From The NY Ratification Convention

    846 Words  | 4 Pages

    Overall, the British government was a tyrannical rule in which the ruling and decisions were all up to one person, King George III. Since the United States had previously already had to go through a terrifying event that was the British government, the Anti Federalists wanted to learn from their mistakes and avoid a government that would possess unmanageable power which would lead to corruption within the system and oppression for the people under the rule. Secondly, the Anti Federalists had also debated that there was a lacking of a Bill of Rights, which would protect the freedom of the people and make sure that the government would not overstep boundaries. With the current path that the Constitution was following the Anti Federalists feared the downfall of the United States, with all three of the branches of the new central government threatening all of the beliefs and ideals that the Anti Federalists had followed. Not only was there a lacking of power and representation for the people in the state there was also a lack of representation in the Central government for the people in order to speak out against the ratification of the constitution.

    Read More

  • Federalists Vs Anti-Federalists

    674 Words  | 3 Pages

    Also, three branches of the government were created so the government wouldn’t become power. It protects the natural rights of the people. The Anti-Federalists only had demands and no educated solution to their

    Read More

  • Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

    705 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Federalist 10 Summary

    679 Words  | 3 Pages

    Madison begins Federalist 10 by stating that a well-functioning government should be able to prevent and control factions and their effects. A faction is any group of people who hold a shared interest and whose common interest either hinders the rights of others in society or harms society as a whole. Although factions cause confusion and violence to occur in a society, no government will be able to stop factions from developing; Madison states that this is because, in order to destroy factions, one would need to destroy liberty. Along with not being able to abolish factions, Madison asserts that it is impractical to try to control factions because individuals will always have differing opinions; he also articulates that the main purpose of governments is to protect

    Read More

  • Tyranny Dbq Essay

    797 Words  | 4 Pages

    What if there was a government that has one ruler making many unjust laws. For example, if someone was put into prison for years for only doing one small crime. Or maybe, if a particular religion or race did not have the same rights as others. This took place in the 1700s in an act called tyranny, or rule by a dictator or strong group that results when the ruler(s) have too much power. The existing government of the Articles Of Confederation was too weak, so the plan was to build a new government that prevented tyranny.

    Read More

  • The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

    99 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

    642 Words  | 3 Pages

    They believed that the Constitution gave the government too much power and if the government had too much power then they would be back to where they started with the same monarchy as Britain. The Anti-Federalist lacked the leadership power compared to the Federalists. Some Anti-Federalist included Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry. Anti-Federalists said that the new government would fall because of merchants and creditors. Anti-Federalist who opposed the Constitution believed that the Constitution failed to protect the rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Federalist And Anti Federalists

    138 Words  | 1 Pages

    Another reason for this belief was people didn't have guaranteed rights. In conclusion this belief among others led to the Anti Federalists fighting against the constitution. The Federalists and Anti Federalists thoughts on the bill of rights like everything else was different. The Federalists believed that the bill of rights was useless. Anti-Federalists thought it was essential to making sure that peoples rights were kept safe.

    Read More

  • Differences Between The Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists

    999 Words  | 4 Pages

    This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.

    Read More

  • Supreme Courts Dbq

    1112 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

    Read More

  • Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalist Debate

    443 Words  | 2 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.

    Read More

  • The Conformity Of The Federalists

    350 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1787, a final draft of the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Those who were in favor of the ratification were called Federalist or nationalist. Among these federalists, were James Madison of Virginia, John Jay of New York and Alexander Hamilton. They had a concrete proposal. They wrote a collection of 85 essays defending the principle of a strong national government.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Anti-Federalists Were Right By Gary Galles

    265 Words  | 2 Pages

    The article, “The Anti-federalists Were Right”, from Mises Daily, by Gary Galles, written on Sept. 27, 2006, is about the accuracy of the outcome of the Constitution that the anti-federalists had foretold. The anti-federalists did not approve the U.S. Constitution. They feared that it would form a tyrannical central government, even though the supporters of the Constitution guaranteed that a government like that would never be created. Anti-federalists informed Americans that the Constitution would affect our freedom and the money we own. They wanted to establish the Bill of Rights to form a boundary between the rights of the people and the government.

    Read More

More about The Anti-Federalists: Competition Between Interest Groups

Open Document