Anti-Federalists

In: Social Issues

Submitted By carin
Words 875
Pages 4
2.03 The Anti-federalists

My position as a federalist is to ratificate the constitution while also creating a strong central government by separation of both of the powers combined. All the federalists were always strong believers in the constitution, believing that this ratification was the only way they were all able to achieve a fair society where all people can all have their rights to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, while also wanting to help shape future analysis of the Constitution for the better and in beneficial ways. By them being able to build a sufficient government with the foundation of the basis of popular sovereignty, without the need of sacrificing any sovereignty of the varied states fairness of the new government, it can be secured and work as it should. The rich would be happy in this case, because they would feel like the new Constitution was benefcial on their part, because the fact that rich's votes would earn much more value than the less fortunate in the states like what they wanted to achieve. They can possibly keep the potential of tyranny from becoming something dangerous to their people and they know that safeguards they have with the government will keep it from overpowering.

The constitution should be ratified as a Federalist because the nation might of never survived without the constitution by their side leading them and a stronger government was necessary at this very point in desperate time. The federalists explained that a different stronger government was needed for a variety of reasons, but especially if the U.S was able to act correctly in foreign affairs, trieing to convince everyone that because of the separation of the combined powers in the central government, there was slight chances of the national government expanding into a tyrannical power. Instead of growing massive in strength, the…...

Similar Documents

Federalist Papers

...FEDERALIST PAPERS Ramon Chavez P5 Debates were going crazy throughout the United States about whether the new Constitution was an improvement or a disaster that will soon ruin the nation. Federalists were actually people who basically agreed with the Constitution and a strong government. The Federalists were basically way much wealthier and more educated Americans than the anti-federalist well most of them like John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Anti-Federalists were actually people who agreed with a weaker government, but liked a stronger state legislature. Yet not all of them liked the Articles of Confederation, but none of them wanted the new Constitution to be ratified so in a way they wanted to make their own document basically. Poor classes in the West also supported the patriots like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry in which they were actually very good at influencing people, like they were very charismatic.Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger national government would one day destroy the liberties Americans had won in the Revolution. They also worried that the new Constitution didn’t list any specific rights for the people in which that was maybe one of the main reasons why they went against the federalist. Many of the smaller states quickly approved the Constitution because it gave them more way power in the new legislative branch than they had under the Articles of Confederation...

Words: 832 - Pages: 4

Federalist Articles

...The constitution can be defined as the supreme law of the United States of America,that establishes rules and distinctive powers of the federal Government. Keith Whittington on his report,How to read the constitution, precisely defines the constitution as “an act of communication, of instruction, from the supreme lawmaker within the American constitutional system to government officials. It conveys their intentions as to what power government officials would have, how that power would be organized, to what legitimate purposes that power could be used, and what limitations there would be on that power”(Whittington,2006). On looking at the constitution written by our founding fathers,it clearly begins by explaining why it was established and the underlying reason of protecting and upholding the fundamental values and interests of the American people.It starts by declaring “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”(The constitution,1787). In article one, it talks of the representation of all the states and rotational election of senators(which I think is important in a democratic government) as well as the making of the necessary laws empowering the government in its execution...

Words: 2742 - Pages: 11

Anti Money

...Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 2. Definitions.-In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (a) “attachment” means prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under section 8; (c) “CTR” means report on currency transactions exceeding such amount as may be specified by the National Executive Committee; (d) “Court” means the Court specified under section 20 (e) “Director General” means the Director General of FMU appointed under section 6; (f) “financial institutions” includes any institution carrying on any or more of the as listed in section 2(f). (g) “fiscal offence” means an offence punishable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001), the Federal Excise Act, 2005, the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and any other law as the Federal Government may notify in this behalf; (h) “FMU” means the Financial Monitoring Unit established under section 6; (i) “foreign serious offence” means an offence – (i) against the law of a foreign State stated in a certificate issued by, or on behalf of, the government of that foreign State; and (ii) which, had it occurred in Pakistan, would have constituted a predicate offence; (j) “investigating or prosecuting agency” means the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) or any other law enforcement agency as may be notified by the Federal Government for the...

Words: 2488 - Pages: 10

Anti Federalism

...Not ratifying the constitution would have been the better choice. Having a federal system where the sates are supreme makes is more beneficial to the people; having a strong central government however, leaves room for domination and control. The federalist supported the constitution and wanted a strong central government. As an anti-federalist the main focus of interest is the protecting the people's rights and limiting government control. Federalist supported the constitution, and wanted immediate ratification. They favored limiting state power, and believed that a strong central government was needed to protect the country. The Federalist's response to the anti-Federalist claim that a Bill of Rights should be introduced was that it would be dangerous. If a right was not listed, what was stopping the government from violating that law? The Federalist figured it would be best if no specific law was listed. Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution. Most Anti-Federalists believed that a somewhat stronger central government was needed, but for the most part favored a federal system where the states were supreme. Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because there was no bill of rights, they wanted the rights of the people to be documented, and limit government power to some degree. The anti-federalist also believed that congress and the executive branch held too much power, and they feared that people of wealth would have the opportunity...

Words: 754 - Pages: 4

Anti-Dumping

...Effects of Anti-dumping Measures A country that is exposed to dumping will benefit from the lower prices. The consumers of the importing country will have a larger consumer surplus since they have access to a larger supply of goods to a lower price. These consumer benefits will be lost when the importing country imposes an antidumping measure on the low-price imports. When the duties are levied on the imports the products will have the same price-level in both domestic and foreign market. When the price is increased in the foreign market the supply will decrease and the producers have to comply with an inefficient low level of output. The consumers in the importing country have to pay a higher price for the products and have less consumer surplus. Other customers will not pay the higher price and are driven out of the market, which leads to a dead-weight social cost (Howse & Trebilcock, 1995). Imposing an anti-dumping measure will cause all the consumers and industrial user benefits from dumping to disappear. The importing country will drive the dumped products out of the market if the anti-dumping duties are high enough, or the product might remain in the market at higher prices. If the dumped products leave the market, the domestic firms are able to raise their prices due to lesser competition. If an anti-dumping measure is introduced in a market where the domestic industry is composed of only one producer, it might lead to that producer charging...

Words: 543 - Pages: 3

Federalist and Anit-Federalist

...The articles of confederation caused problems. Had no judicial branch nor executive branch. Weak in central government, had no power to tax, no power to regulate trade, no power to coin money and back it up with previous standard, and no money to raise an army or navy. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. They argued that the document would give the country an entirely new form of government. They saw no sense in throwing out the existing government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution gave the president too much power and that the proposed Congress would be too higher-class in nature; with too few representatives for too many people. They also criticized the Constitution for its lack of a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists also shared the feeling that so large a country as the United States could not possibly be controlled by one national government. Although the Anti-Federalists were united in their opposition to the Constitution, they did not agree on what form of government made the best alternative to it. Some still believed that the Articles of Confederation could be amended in such a way that they would provide a workable confederation. Some wanted the Union to break up and re-form into three or four different confederations. Others were even ready to accept the Constitution if it were amended in such a way that the rights of...

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Federalist

...FEDERALIST The Federalist Party was in favor of the newly formed constitution. One of the main objects of the federal constitution is to secure the union and in addition include any other states that would arise as a part of the union. The federal constitution would also set its aim on improving the organization of the union. Which would include improvements on toads and interior navigation. The Federalists believed that each state should find an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection. Americans were very suspicious of the government, but the Anti-Federalist was very distrustful of the government in general and strong national government. The mistrust was the foundation of their opposition to the constitution. The Anti-Federalist argued that the constitution had many flaws. Anti-Federalists feared that because of the flaws in the constitution, that the new national government would be a threat to their national rights. They also thought that the constitution had been developed by a privileged group to create a national government for the purpose of serving its own selfish interest. They thought the only safe government that if it had a local and closely linked with the will of the people, as we have yearly elections and replacing people in key positions. The Federalist knew that many members of Congress and the state governments were against the new constitution, because it reduced their powers. So the Federalists decided not to ask the......

Words: 283 - Pages: 2

Anti-Federalist

...By: Normandie Lovince I am a supporter of the anti-federalist party. The anti-federalist took some of the ideas that the federalist had into consideration. Instead of abolishing or ignoring these ideas, they wanted to improve them. The anti-federalist and the federalist share two very opposing views. As you read this essay, you will gradually start to see just how my ideas are being supported as to why I've chosen to become an anti-federalist. The anti-federalist party was the first out of two political parties of the U.S. This party was led by Henry, George Mason and Samuel Adams alongside Richard Henry Lee who wanted the president and the senate to have the entire executive and 2/3 of the legislative power. As an anti-federalist, I believe that the constitution should not be ratified. I feel like the best way, that the U.S citizens should be protected is by being kept safe from the Government and the bill of rights will do that because of the freedom and liberty that it gives us. "The greatest importance for Freemen to retain themselves are the liberties given to us in the bill of rights", which is why it's so important that we'd add it to the constitution. In order to get the bill of rights to be in the constitution we'd need to sacrifice part of our natural rights, for the good of others around us. The anti-federalist believed that the constitution should have a bill of rights. The Anti-federalist opposed the constitution, while the federalist themselves...

Words: 836 - Pages: 4

Federalist 10 Essay

... do away with all causes of faction, or make strides to contain and control its effects. Likewise, there are two ways in which one can remove the causes of factions: "by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests" (Madison). Madison states that "liberty is to faction what air is to fire" (Madison). That is to say, without liberty there cannot be factions. Thus, if one were to attempt to do away with all causes of factions, all one would have to do is withhold liberty. For the basis of a government, however, this is hardly practical, as liberty is one of the major platforms of the United States Constitution (along with life and the pursuit of happiness.) Further, to encourage a society based on one set of opinions and interests, another option in the destruction of faction, would be impossible, as it is in human nature to be concerned with self-interest and self-preservation. As such, Madison deemed the destruction of the causes of faction impractical. If one could not destroy the causes of factions, Madison asserted that the only other option was to control their effects. Madison argues that the problems concerning factions are typically those involving majority factions. This is due to the fact that, generally, minority factions, according to the article, do not inherently pose a threat to government. In other words, the federalists feared the plausible...

Words: 1377 - Pages: 6

The Federalist Papers

...Harjinder Kaur   USSO 10100  Prof. Gillooly  03/06/2015  The Significance of the Federalist Papers  The Federalist Papers, is a compilation of 85 articles, advocating the ratification of the  proposed Constitution of the United States. These series of articles were published by Alexander  Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay between October 1787 and May 1788. The overall  intention of the Federalist Papers was to explain the advantages of the proposed Constitution  over the prevailing Articles of Confederation. The Federalist Papers impacted the ratification of  the Constitution by making some of their most important objections, including the significance  of having a Constitution, acknowledging to the disagreements made by the Antifederalists, and  defending conflicting arguments made against the attributes of the executive and judicial branch  as specified in the proposed Constitution.   Before the ratification of the Constitution, the central government under the Articles of  Confederations was very weak and in jeopardy of falling apart. Alexander Hamilton, James  Madison, and John Jay, who were Federalists believed as well that the Articles of Confederation  was too weak to maintain a powerful central government and needed to be restored by the U.S  Constitution. The fundamental goal of the U.S constitution was to secure the rights of the U.S  citizens and for the federal government to strive for the common good of the individuals. The  Federalist Papers illustrates how...

Words: 1423 - Pages: 6

Federalist V Anti

...OPINION ARTICLE I as a Floridian always have Florida’s best intentions in mine because I want to maintain living somewhere safe and economically secure. And when it comes to who should be the one in charge of making big changes or passing law, it should be someone that really knows about politics and the economy, someone that will not be biased. And that would be federalist; they are true politicians, people who truly have the knowledge to direct Florida and all the other states to a better place with a strong central government in charge. I see it like this you don’t want a garbage man that has no knowledge as your doctor, you want someone that has knowledge in that field, it’s the same with politics. John Adam stated that “government is instituted for the common good; for the perfection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of man….” Federalist were business men, and wanted a central government because of equality they wanted the states to all have the same right not one be more powerful because of their size or any other quality. By Adams saying this he also was saying that sometimes people want to lead to have an advantage and for their own good, but by having a central government that wouldn’t happen. Anti-federalist believed that anyone could be a representative but if you really think about it that incorrect because people that really don’t know about......

Words: 394 - Pages: 2

2.03 Anti Federalist

...Federalism In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches Anti-Federalist and Federalist The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalist also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws...

Words: 458 - Pages: 2

Federalist or Antifederalist

...Choose whether to argue as a Federalist or as an Anti-Federalist. Review the lesson to make sure you understand their main points. Using quotes from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, write an opinion article for a newspaper, or create a speech podcast to convince people in your state to agree with your position. Include the following in your speech or article: teens shaking hands after playing a game of tennis © 2012 Polka Dot/Thinkstock introductory paragraph that clearly states your position as a Federalist or Anti-Federalist at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. If you would like to explore more of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to find your own quotes, these sites will be helpful. Federalist Papers American Studies at the University of Virginia The Avalon Project at Yale Law School The Law Center at the University of Oklahoma Anti-Federalist Papers Document Library by Teaching American History at least one paragraph to explain why you disagree with the opposing stance. For example, if you have chosen to argue as a Federalist, you will explain why you disagree with the Anti-Federalist position, using quotes from the documents to support your argument. strong concluding paragraph that summarizes your argument and encourage others to support you Your argument should be...

Words: 382 - Pages: 2

Anti Federalist vs. Federalist

...Both Federalists and Anti-Federalist was both established from Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson who was an anti-federalist, was the secretary of state and hamilton, who was a federalist, was the secretary of the treasury. both parties thought presidents should be voted in by the public, (white males to specific). they based their ideas from the Enlightenment. Overall, they both wanted to keep the liberties of the people protected and wanted representative government. it is important to understand the two opposing view because the two groups untimely forged our nation, and they also created the basic of today two party political system. Opposing Views Federalists Anti-Federalist they were the supporters of a larger national government. they were a group of people that opposed the ratification of the proposed constitution in 1787. Federalists felt like the Bill of Rights addition was not necessary, because they believe that the constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. propose and supported the Bill of Rights addition because they claimed the constitution gave the central government too much power, and without the bill of rights the people would be at risk of oppression. felt that the states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they say fit. felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic struggles and national weakness. favored dividing the power among different...

Words: 380 - Pages: 2

2.03 Federalist vs Antifederalist

...If you were to ask me whether I sided with the anti-federalist or the federalist, you might be surprised at what I would say. Maybe not for the reasons you think. In my opinion, I side with the federalist. I’m all for order and I don’t like change so much but to make a country better you need to change some things. Things will constantly be changing and that is fine. A strong central government is very important. The federalist wanted to see a change to improve the country as a whole whereas the anti-federalist wanted to keep the monarchy ways. The anti-federalist and federalist had different views as to how a country should be ran. Both did have ideas to help the country and make it better. Federalist wanted a central federal government, a central bank, and an army. They cared about the governed and not just the ones who govern. In federalist paper no. 39 it says “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from and inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claims for their government and honorable title of republic.” Not only did the federalist care about giving too much power to the important people, they also wanted to have control of the government. It states this in federalist paper no. 59: “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own and...

Words: 545 - Pages: 3