You will construct an essay that explains the Federalists and Anti-Federalist debate. You will include an examination of the arguments made by both groups. Particular focus should be given to the issues of republican government, strong central/national government, and individual rights.
Requirements:
1. Five-paragraph essay
2. A well-developed thesis
3. A strong introduction
4. Body paragraphs that include evidence and significant details
5. A strong conclusion explaining the resolution
6. At least two parenthetical citations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
After the Constitutional Convention, the fight for the Constitution had just begun. conventions in nine states had to ratify the Constitution before it would become effective. Some states were highly in favor of the new Constitution, and within three months, three states, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, had ratified it. Georgia and Connecticut quickly followed in January, 1788.
More than halfway there in four months, people might have thought that the battle was nearly won. But the problem was not with the states that ratified quickly, but with the key states that ratification was not as certain. Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were key states, both in because of population and stature. Debates in Massachusetts were very heated, with impassioned speeches from those on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts was finally won, 187-168, but only after assurances to opponents that the Constitution could have a bill of rights added to it.
Within a few months, more and more states fell into place. In the federalists papers number ten, James Madison says "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." The Federalists papers were written to persuade people to approve the constitution. There were several issues, mostly coming down to their opposition to a strong central government and protection of the rights of the citizens. "The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that: It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the [states]. There was no bill of rights. The national government could maintain an army in peacetime. Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power. The executive branch held too much power.
The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them were, the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.
Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Congress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.
Ratifying the U.S. Constitution
In this essay I will be telling you about "ratifying the Constitution." There was a debate between both sides of the Constitution; it was between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The first thing you should know is that the Federalist are people who want to change the constitution; the anti-federalist are the people who don't support the constitution.
This paragraph is going to tell you about talk about the Republican Government. The republican government was that the people made their own government. The main focus on the republican government is that they are willing for a change to satisfy the people's needs.
There was a strong central/national government with the North and the South, The North was arguing for there be no more slaves through out the United States of America. The South was arguing because they wanted slaves and their slaves did everything for them.They told the north if they didn't want slaves then don't have them: we want them because we are to busy for things around the house. The north tried to decide for the U.S. but things didn't go the way they planned for them to go.
The individual rights were life, liberty, and nobility. They had the choice to own things that no one could take from them; like furniture, hand guns, and etc. Personally I believe that individual rights can be sort of similar to basic/natural rights.
They solved the Republican government was solved by the people. They solved the central/national government by not banding slavery in the south but over time(centuries) slavery was later put to an end. Individual rights were solved by letting the people keep their belongings and they can't be taken away but others without permission.
Natalie D
period 1/2
Ratifying the U.S. Constitution
Change was occurring in the states, a big change. A change that would influence generations to come. Perhaps you are wondering; What is this big Change? The Constitution, the most controversial idea of the 1700s. This issue was so controversial, people wanted to modify it to fit what the believed in and to protect their natural rights. People needed to agree with this higher law, because this is what would govern them all. Because of this issue, two groups of people formed: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. However before we can fully understand the positions people took on this issue, we need to understand the Constitution.
The first mention of the constitution was at the Philadelphia Convention in May 25, 1787 by the framers and delegates of the states. It was born from a combination of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia plan was submitted to the Constitutional Convention by James Madison, that proposed a new form of government, not a mere revision of the Articles of Confederation. The plan envisioned a much stronger national government structured around three branches (google). In contrast, the New Jersey plan, proposed by William Patterson as a substitute for the Virginia Plan in an effort to provide greater protection for the interests of small states. It recommended that the Articles of Confederation should be amended, not replaced, with a unicameral Congress, in which each state would have an equal vote (google). After much thought, the concluded the best method by creating the Constitution.
The Federalists wanted unity within the country, so they supported the Constitution. They wanted a strong government, they believed this would eradicate all their problems. In supporting the Constitution, they understood that the government would have a much greater power then the Articles of Confederation. This they thought, would be a good thing for the government and it would balance the power equally between the state and the government. A system of checks and balances would keep the power in check and prevent any one branch from becoming a tyranny. A republican government would make it difficult for such a large government to take in the ideas of all the specialty groups, the virtue of the people was taken away by tyranny. However, some aspects of a republic would work in the Constitution. One of the most difficult and debatable issues was the one of a bill of rights. The Federalists believed a bill of rights was not necessary for the protection of rights. They thought that the Constitution didn't deprive people of their rights. In fact they believed because of writs of habeas corpus, the bills of attainder and preventing the ex post facto laws. These were the basic ideas of the Federalist party, who supported the Constitution.
In any major issue you must have a opposing side. For the Constitution, it was the Anti-federalists. The Anti-federalists believed that the constitution was not the way to go, and supported the articles of confederation. They thought that the Constitution gave the government too much power, and that it could lead to the government becoming a monarchy. In addition, they believed that the Constitution did not provide for a Republican government since the new nation was to large and had many different opinions. Being firm believers of having people's natural rights protected they concluded that the Constitution didn't protect them. Because of this, the Anti-federalists petitioned to a Bill of Rights to protect the people. This was later made official in 1791.
In June 1788, The Constitution was finally approved. It required 9 states approval, to make it official but they succeeded. In addition to the Constitution, a bill of rights was added. The Bill of rights included peoples rights to have freedom of religion, speech, press and many other things. The Federalists had won, and Anti-federalists had still gotten their opinion in the forming of the new government. So in all, everybody was satisfied and continues to be so even today.
Ratifying the U.S. Constitution
After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution was not approved because there was a tossup between the federalists and the anti-federalists.
The federalists were the ones who wanted the Constitution to be approved. The federalists wrote a petition called the federalist papers. The federalist papers stated that the new federal government would not over-power the states.
The anti-federalists were against the Constitution. The anti-federalists said the opposite of what the federalists said. They said new federal government would over-power the states.
The Constitution was finally approved. It was very close between the federalists and the anti-federalists.
A federalist government probably has the most hope to create a strong national government with the sole priority to make sure that the country that is using this form of government does not fall under any sort of power or the same situation as the articles of confederation.
One thing that federalism offers is that people delegate their sovereignty to more than one government. (WE the People pg 149). And according to the natural rights people have the right to create a government, and delegate to government the right or authority, to govern them. In return, government is responsible for protecting the people’s rights to life liberty and property. This is what the Framers wanted the constitution to be about.
Compared to federalism a confederation is where the states are virtually separated, and have control of anything that affects their citizens and territory. The central government only handles common things within the country. The states can withdraw from the confederation at any time, which is what basically happened with the Civil War. It is basically every state for them selves whereas federalism, the states are able to work together and function as a country. Switzerland is a modern example of a country the uses a confederation.
When a country is under a federal government it has a strong central government that protects the states and peoples rights. Some of these rights include the right to believe what we wish, form or join organizations, select our careers and live as we choose, choose our friends, travel where we wish and to go inside or outside the country, and raise a family. Some of the states rights include, making their own laws, taxing the people, borrowing money, creating their own court system, and providing for the health and welfare of the people. James Madison talked about
In the federalist No.10 James Madison talked about how factions (separated states or people with different ideas) where corrupting government and making it unstable. A quote from the federalist NO. 10 says that: (divided mankind into parties, influenced them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their un friendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.) This basically means that by separating people you encourage them to fight each other, which leads to a state of nature.
Cassidy McGonigle
Period 1/2
The Federalists had a different idea about the Constitution than the anti-federalists.The federalists were totally okay with the constitution and were ready to put it into action but the anti-federalist ,there was enough of them, wanted to improve the constitution even more. So, when it came time at the Philadelphia Convention to sign the document the people refused to sign their name on it. They put together a meeting to debate the concept of the constitution. The main part of the debate they discussed the idea of Republican government, The national government with too much power, and if the Bill of Rights was needed in the constitution.
This idea of Republican government to the anti-federalists was preposterous. It absolutely wouldn't work because the united states was too big and diverse, in order to have a republican government you needed a small agreeable community. Another problem was that a free government required participation from the national government and it would be located to far away. On the he other hand the federalists had the idea that republican government was a great idea because it gave the people more say then in the other types of governments. In the end they did end up using this idea for a short time but switched to federalism a short time later.
The anti-federalists thought that the constitution was going to give the national government too much power and they definitely did not want that. Since their experience with Britain they were a lot more cautious about the national that's why the Articles of Confederation never worked because there was a lack of national government. The federalists wanted to have the constitution the way it was. They were not as cautious as the anti-federalists. They saw no problem with the constitution and wanted to put into act right away. The anti-federalists still refused to sign it so they had to make the change.
The federalists wanted to put the constitution into action and they thought they had accommodated all the anti-federalists needs and thought they could just apply the rules immediately but the anti-federalists had one more demand and that was to add the Bill of Rights. The federalists protested that the constitution was fine the way it was and they should just stop worrying about improving it more. The anti-federalists still refused to sign it so there came the Bill of Rights. It's a good thing we still have this document because it's important in society today.
The constitution was made shortly after the Bill of Rights and is still basically our constitution today. Though the anti-federalists and federalists had different views on the constitution they had to accommodate each persons opinions and stop thinking only of what they wanted. In the end it came out to be a great and helpful document. These main views they had the most trouble with was republican government, the national government being too powerful and the Bill of Rights.
The federalist/anti federalist debate shows why the constitution should be ratified and why it shouldn’t. Both sides wrote papers that explained their points of view on the subject.
Federalists were the people who strongly approved the ratification of constitution and writ the federalist papers. The federalist papers were written to persuade people to approve the constitution during its early years. The papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They submitted the papers to the news where it would be published and read all around.
The anti federalists were a group who opposed the ratification of the constitution and clamed that the framers had gone too far and feared the governmental system proposed by the framers would lead to a new kind of tyranny. The anti federalists were Patrick Henry, George Clinton, and Melancton smith.
The federalists were constantly battling and arguing about certain points in their papers. One of the arguments started after an anonymous writer signed deliberator argued for the anti- federalist party that we could not train the government. The federalists replied with a firm letter that proved them wrong.
In conclusion, the federalists have the superior point of view on the constitution, which led to the ratification of the USconstitution.
After the Philadelphia Convention, there was another debate right after that one, but this one was bigger, but not in the way you would think. This one was bigger because there was more of a controversy than it actually being a problem and that problem was should there be a bill of rights. Of all things the two people who were fighting were the called the federalist and the anti-federalist. This debate turned framer against framer, family against family; this was a big debate that had to be solved.
The anti-federalist didn’t want the bill of rights because they had a view on republican government that didn’t agree with the bill of rights. That view was that a republican government wouldn’t work because there is to diverse of a group of people in the colonies and that they needed a more effective form of government which they thought was a national government located far away from where most people lived. The federalist view on this was that in a republican government where the powers are shared was the best solution. They also thought that it was better way to base the idea of checks and balance on that.
The anti-federalist view on if the national government having to much power was that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the states. They were also worried that if they have too much power they could keep the army at a time of peace and use it against the people. They thought that the idea of necessary and proper clause was too general and that gives too much power to the executive branch. The federalist view on national government was national government will have more power under the constitution then it did under the Articles of Confederation, but it’s power would be limited. They also believed that the constitution will provide protection for the states by reserving powers for the states. Unlike the anti-federalist, the federalist believed that it was necessary to have a strong executive branch.
The final and last problem the anti-federalist and the federalist had was that is the bill of rights needed for the constitution? The anti-federalist believed that they did need a bill of rights and that it is not included. Since it wasn’t included they believed that the government could come and violate there rights to freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. They thought since they just fought for those rights, the constitution would jeopardize those rights they fought for. The federalist believed that they did not needed a bill of rights because the constitution is the ultimate protection and that it does not deprive people of there rights because of having writs of habeas corpus, ex post facto laws and bill of attainder.
So, in the end the both sides sort of won. The federalist got to keep the constitution, but they added the bill of rights to the constitution so the anti-federalist were happy to. In the end everybody was happy and there was no more worries for that subject.
-Info from We The People
-Alex Adame
The debate between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist came in to pace when the Bill of Right Came into place. The Anti-Federalist, like James Madison, were complaining all about the Congress, Executive branch, and National Government would have too much power. The Federalists had every problem that might happen under control.
The Anti-Federalists did not want the Bill of Rights because they first started with the Articals of Confederation and that did not work out, then they tried the Virginia plan, then the New Jersey plan and none of those worked out. I think the Anti-Federalists did not want the bill of right because there were scared of having it and did not want all of the events to happen again. They were scared and that is why.
The Anti-Federalists worried about quite a few things. They thought the Bill of Rights gave too much power to the National Government, there was no Bill of Rights before so they did not want one now, the national Government the national government could maintain an army in peacetime, they also thought because of Necessary and Proper Clause they thought Congress has too much power, and last they thought the Executive branch had too much power and maybe the President might become a dictator.
Well all of the Federalists all ready had a plan to solve all of those problems. Some of the things they did was the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people; the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. They also argued that it's better to list none of the rights at all. That may have been one of the reasons why the Anti-Federalists did not like the Bill of Rights.
After all of the debating between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists ended up signing the Bill of Rights because the Federalists added Amendments and that gave more rights to the people and that made the Anti-Federalists happy so they signed it. And that's the end of that one.
By the end of the end of the Constitutional Convention, the decision for the new constitution was still not completely set. The framer did not believe that they had made the prefect plan of government. Some delegates refused to sign the new constitution, while a majority thought they did a good job. The delegates that didn’t want to sign the constitution became known as the Anti-Feudalist and the ones that didn’t became known as the Feudalist.
The Anti-Feudalist didn’t want to sign the new constitution because they believed that it gave to much power to the national government and not the people. “…the Anti-Feudalist were especially mistrustful of government in general and strong national government in particular” says We The People (158). They thought that the United State’s government would become overly powerful and start to deny citizens their rights. They also thought that the constitution would not maintain they also thought that the constitution would not maintain a republican form of government.
The Feudalist was the delegates that supported the constitution and believed that a strong national government was necessary to keep the government in order. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, also Federalist, wrote a series of articles in the New York newspapers. They published these anonymously and they became known as The Federalist. “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of factions: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects” The Federalist No.10 by James Madison (1). This exert was from one of The Feudalist papers. It described factions, or separate groups, are a problem.
Eventually both of the groups came to a compromise. The out come was the Bill of Rights. It listed the rights that every U.S. citizen would have no matter what. The Anti-Federalist liked this compromise because with the bill of rights it would be harder for the central government to rule with absolute power and take away the citizens rights. The Federalist liked this because they were able to keep a relatively strong government.
With the debates of the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, it allowed us the come out with our current constitution. With the Bill of Rights the citizens of the United States are able to live with out their rights being neglected. With a strong national government people don’t have to worry about states breaking away from the country. Even though the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist had different views on government, they developed the constitution we still use today.
Brenden Zoune
A huge debate formed in the late 1780’s between the federalists and anti-federalists over the creation of the Constitution. The Federalists favored a strong national government. The anti-federalists were afraid of a strong national government because of the tyrannical problems occuring in Britain. The Federalists were prepared in solving the dilemma by making the Bill of Rights.
The antifederalists were scared and unwilling to take the risk of a strong national government. The new Constitution proposed a strong national government, so they anti-federalists were against the new doc. Nine states were needed to ratify the constitution, and nine states approved in 1788.
The Federalists included people such as James Madison. He was a strong voice in repairing the constitution. The Federalists were willing to compromise with the anti-federlaists in order to get the Constitution ratified. Delaware was the first state to ratify, followed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The Bill of Rights was a component that compelled the anti-federalists. It carried the ten amendments. This gave more protection to the peoples rights, a factor that dragged anti-federalists away from the new constitution.
In sum, the two groups finally determined ways to live under the same Constitution. Like many of the battles fought between separate sides in one nation, a compromise was reached.
During the creation of the constitution there were two sides, the federalists and the anti federalists. These two sides argued back and fourth about how the constitution should be brought about. Basically the federalists supported the constitution and thought that it should be ratified, the non federalists disagreed with the constitution and did not think it should be approved or ratified.
Some federalists were Alexander Hamiltion, James Madison and John Jay. These federalists wrote the federalist papers, the objective of the papers was to convince everyone that the constitution was a good choice; they published the papers so everyone could read them.
The anti federalists were the people who disagreed with ratifying the constitution, some of these people were Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith and George Clinton, their ideas were that the framers ideas of government were too much like Britain and would lead to problems. They thought that if the constitution was ratified there would be another tyranny.
The federalists and anti federalists were always battling about which was better ratifying or not. They wrote letters back and fourth arguing their points and ideas about the topic. These groups were always fighting and could not come up with a solution to solve the problem.
I conclude that the anti federalists were truly mistaken when they argued their points and the federalists were the ones who were thinking clearly. The federalist point of view soon was the breaking point for the ratification of the constitution.
Feds VS Anti-Feds
AJ Kinton
After the Constitution was drafted, it was big topic of debates because many questioned if it was necessary and didn't approve of it. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, while the Federalists wanted it to be ratified, or approved. One reason the Anti-Federalists didn't like it was because they were afraid of a strong central, or national, government. Also, they questioned what rights would be taken away. Several things were done by the Federalists to convince people, such as the "Federalist Papers" written under aliases like Publis.
The debate lasted a while because the Anti-Federalists were afraid of being oppressed by a strong central government. An issue that concerned the Anti-Federalists was what powers the states would lose, because the rules would affect the whole nation, and not just that state that made it. The Anti-Federalists used Britain as an example to show how that could happen. This was a strategy they used to convince people to vote against the Constitution.
The Federalists reacted by using local newspapers to try and convince people otherwise. The Federalists published a series of articles called the Federalist Papers. They argued that a strong central government is needed “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”(Federalist paper #10 by James Madison).
In the end, the Federalists finally convinced the Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution by adding the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They satisfied the Anti-Federalists wish to let the states have power in the government while preserving the Federalists desire to have a strong national government. The amendments in the Bill of Rights include the following:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
(Amendments one through ten of the U.S. Constitution)
In conclusion, the Anti-Federalists were afraid of a strong central government and worried about their rights. So the Federalists agreed to add the Bill of Rights, which satisfied the Anti-Federalists' concerns. After they settled the conflict the new Constitution with the Bill of Rights was ratified.
-Essay by Andrew “AJ” Kinton
Feds VS Anti-Feds
AJ Kinton
After the Constitution was drafted, it was big topic of debates because many questioned if it was necessary and didn't approve of it. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, while the Federalists wanted it to be ratified, or approved. One reason the Anti-Federalists didn't like it was because they were afraid of a strong central, or national, government. Also, they questioned what rights would be taken away. Several things were done by the Federalists to convince people, such as the "Federalist Papers" written under aliases like Publis.
The debate lasted a while because the Anti-Federalists were afraid of being oppressed by a strong central government. An issue that concerned the Anti-Federalists was what powers the states would lose, because the rules would affect the whole nation, and not just that state that made it. The Anti-Federalists used Britain as an example to show how that could happen. This was a strategy they used to convince people to vote against the Constitution.
The Federalists reacted by using local newspapers to try and convince people otherwise. The Federalists published a series of articles called the Federalist Papers. They argued that a strong central government is needed “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”(Federalist paper #10 by James Madison).
In the end, the Federalists finally convinced the Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution by adding the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They satisfied the Anti-Federalists wish to let the states have power in the government while preserving the Federalists desire to have a strong national government. The amendments in the Bill of Rights include the following:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
(Amendments one through ten of the U.S. Constitution)
In conclusion, the Anti-Federalists were afraid of a strong central government and worried about their rights. So the Federalists agreed to add the Bill of Rights, which satisfied the Anti-Federalists' concerns. After they settled the conflict the new Constitution with the Bill of Rights was ratified.
-Essay by Andrew “AJ” Kinton
Sonya Molansky
per.1/2
The debate between the Federalists and Anti federalist was settled when the bill of rights came into place.
There was a debate and there was two groups: the federalists and anti federalists. The federalists wanted the constitution because it protected the peoples rights.
The federalists believed that the constitution would help the country because the three branches of government gives more rights to the people, which means that the federalists were more lenient towards Monarchy.
The anti federalists also had a good point of view in that it gave too much power to the national government which would hurt the state governments. And because they thought that the executive branch was too powerful.
"the anti federalists -people who opposed the constitution- thought that the constitutional convention could not have created a new government." page 132 Willium Deverell and Deborah Gray White. The constitutional convention lasted four months and was the development of the new government. This was the breaking point of the dispute. The federalists were all for this convention.
"They thought it was a careful compromise between various political views. Many federalists were wealthy planters, farmers, and lawyers. However, many others were poor workers and craftspeople." page 133 Willium Deverell and Deborah Gray White. Since there was a balance in political views of the people, the constitution was fair to the common good.
"Several states ratified the constitution only after they were promised that a bill protecting their natural rights would be added to it." page 135 Willium Deverell and Deborah Gray White. This is how the federalists and anti federalists agreed that that constitution was the right thing to do. If they could keep their rights, then they would support it.
We all know about the Articles of Confederation right? How it was flawed and was doing nothing for our growing country? Well you see the people who wrote the Articles of Confederation (delegates) knew they did a bad job and needed to fix it, thus causing them to write the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan neither of which they chose because both were also flawed. Instead, they needed to start from scratch, start all over again they needed to write the United States Constitution.
Ok so basically after the Constitution was written there were still delegates that did not like the Constitution these delegates were called anti-federalists, basically what they said was this:
• It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
• There was no bill of rights.
• The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.
• Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.
• The executive branch held too much power. (Google)
On the other hand, there were the delegates that were perfectly happy with how the Constitution was, these delegates were called federalists. They had all of the answers for the anti federalists complaints:
• The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
• A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all. (Google)
There was a lot of discussion over the Constitution from the time it was made to the time they finally said, “IT’S DONE!” The anti federalists may have made a good point but frankly who would want to write the Constitution again.
So in the over all scheme of things, we had the articles of confederation, it was really bad and no one liked it so they came up with the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan which neither were chosen because tat were flawed and then through the great compromise we came up with the United States Constitution.
When the delegates wrote the Constitution in 1791, not all the states and citizens compleatly agreed with it. Some people said the articles of confederation were not enough to govern the country and needed the constitution to replace them. They were known as the Federalist group. The people who beleived that the new constitution was flawed and that the articles of confederation were enough to run the country by were called the Non-Federalist group.
The Federalist group beleived that a weak central government would not be enough to control all the states and that it would lead to the states breaking up into thirteen seperate colonies. This is what the Articles of Confederation was trying to make the government be like so the Federalists were strongly agenst it. However, the Federalists didn't really want to argue with the other group; they more or less wanted to work out their differences by slightly changing or adding things to the existing Constitution. The part that they wanted to add on was called the Bill of Rights. This is where the Federalists hoped that bith sides would be able to settle their dissagreements and end up allowing the Constitution to be ratified.
One thing that the Non-Federalist group feared was a strong federal government. They were worried that it might turn in to a monarchy like that of England and waste all the progress that had been made by the Revolution. Because of this, the Federalist group proposed a system of checks and balances were the govt is split to not have a chance of a monarch or a dictator. After they proposed that it would take nine of the thirteen states to ratify the Constitution the fist state to do so was Delaware the last was road Island.In 1791 the constitution was official and it replaced the articles of confederation.
The magor compromise that the two groups came to was the first ten amendments.because the amendments could be changed to make bouth sides happy. Witch ment that the goverment pretty much hade strings on it there fore the people were the ones pulling the strings. the people were the ones making the disigions like who would lead or jugg in a corut.that made both sides agree to the counstition and in 1791 Road Island ratified the counstition was now offichal.
The two sides wanted two compleetly diffrent things the federalist wanted a strong sentral goverment. The non-federalist wanted a week sentral government with a strong state government.thro a lot of meetings and a new system of checks and balances and bing able to add and take amendments to or off thay finaly agreed to the constition ,and resolved it with out enny magor fights or arguments.
At the end of the constitutional convention the fight for a constitution had just begun. 9 states had to ratify the constitution before it was made effective. The federalists wanted the constitution and the anti federalists did not.
One thing that federalism offers is that people delegate their sovereignty to more than one government. (we the People pg 149). It also means that there will be natural rights and the right to overthrow the government if it is not doin its job.
There are many reasons why anti-federalist were against the government one was because they were afraid that america would turn in to a dictatorship if they made the constitution because it would give to much power to the national government.
A confederation is when the states are completley seperated and anything that happens on there turf is there problem. In this any state can get out of the confederation anytime they want to. Unlike a federation which works with all the states.
They solved the slavery issue by not banning it untill a later date. They solved the individual rights issue they solved by letting the people keep their belongings and they can't be taken away by others without permission.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had different ideas about many things about the constitution. The had different ideas on who would make laws. They had a debate and the three topics to focus on were a republican government, a strong central/national government, and individual rights.
The Federalists believed in a republican government. They thought that having a group of different people with different ideas to make the decisions was a good way of having a government. The Anti-Federalists did not believe in that they thought that having the state governments decide for themselves.
The Federalists believed that having a strong central/national government was good. They thought that it would be easier to rule all of the people. It also was part of the constitution so that made them agree to it. The Federalists thought that by having a strong central/national government would be good because there was an overall rule over the people so not that many people had there own say about the government. The Anti-Federalists were just the opposite. They thought that the people should be able to have their own say about the government. They also didnt want the central/national government to get too large and over power.
The Federalists didnt believe in individual rights. They thought that the people shouldnt be able to have there own say about government. They thought it was better to have an overall ruler making laws. The Anti-Federalists thought that it was better to have the people help make decisions. They thought that if they had a government where the people dont decide then things would get the large to handle. The government would be too big. The people would have no say in the government, so they thouht it was unfair. They did want ttheir government to become over rule. They thought that the people should be able to decide on things. The Anti-Federalists thought that haveing a government where the people have no say wouldnt be right. They thought it was unfair and it would be better so that the government wouldnt have just one group or one person over ruling and have the people decide on things so that their government didnt over power the people.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had many different thoughts about the government and the way to rule it. The ideas on there debate was a republic government, a strong central/national government, and individual rights. They all thought important things on each topic and had their own view for each of them.
Leslie Zamora
Obama's Speech Analysis
On January 21st, 2009 President Obama made his inauguration speech in Washington D.C. in front of millions of hopeful Americans who were looking forward to change in America. The president has made a great effort in telling all of the people that he will fix the problems that we have, although they may not be fixed in a short span a of time. "But know this, America — they will be met." said President Obama during the beginning of his speech. He is well aware of the crisis that America is in and has promised the people of America that he will do what is in his power to fix America once again. During this speech, President Obama talked about how America needs to work together to fix the country we are and said "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things." meaning we the people need to take charge of the various problems we are facing and stand up to it the right and smart way. President Obama has vowed to help America and improve the economic status.
Our state of economy calls for bold swift actions and President Obama has said he will not only act to make more and new jobs but will lay a foundation of new growth for this generation and others to follow. President Obama has faith in his promises, he knows he has lots to change and the people of America will stand with him to make the changes necessary for this. "All this we can do. All this we will do." said Obama after talking about the changes that there will be in the way we use our science. He wants to use the new advances in technology to help raise health care qualities and lower the cost of health care. President Obama also said that he wanted to use the suns energy, the wind and earths soil to help power our cars and factories, instead of using green house gasses that have been causing a great deal of global warming, and with it endangering the environment. He also spoke about wanting to help schools and colleges to educate students the right way and helping the students succeed instead of failing. Obama wants the country to be the best we can be, and also wants the U.S. to be of inspiration to other countries.
What I have noticed is that President Obama used many strong sentences to motivate you into wanting to help America and do a part, even if the part is small. "It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." He makes you think about the hard work that it took, and the people who created this country of freedom, and all the work needed although we pulled through. He uses this point to help get his point across, that if we don’t work hard to fix our problems, then how will it get done? I do think a technique he uses to do this, is he uses motivation, but also he uses past references such as, "Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)." Here it seems as though, President Obama is trying to give the people faith also by using some of the inspirational lines that were used on the soldiers during the revolutionary war to help the U.S. win the war when it had seemed as though all faith was lost.
All through this, his voice was a strong authority, and a sound of hope to all the Americans that were listening to his speech. His speech was very promising and i think that it was able to touch many people. It was an effective speech and the fact that he did it without any notes or papers, just made it seem as though he cared more about what he was talking about. It made the words seem as though they had more meaning to them and as if they truly came from the heart. In my opinion, I loved his speech. I thought that his point was very thorough and bold. He stated things that had happened a long time ago to really get his point across. Another thing was, President Obama's speech held many promises, but he actually talked about how he was going to fulfill them instead of just making them. If some Americans did not have faith or hope in him before, I think that maybe now they do because, his speech was so moving, and was exactly the thing that many needed to hear including me.
Post a Comment