...1. The Federalist wanted a strong central government and weak state governments. The major federalist were Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and George Washington. The Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and didn't want a powerful central government. The key anti-federalist were John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Otis Warren. The federalist favored the Constitution because it gave Congress the power to govern domestic affairs. Not only that but they were given the power to tax due to the Constitution. They did not trust the people to solve the major problems the nation had so they wanted a strong central government to counter that. The Constitution implemented a check and balance system so that one branch isn't too powerful compared to the others. As long as Congress had power, the federalist were happy. The anti-federalist were the exact opposite. They valued the Articles of Confederation because it gave the states the most power. It prevented the central government from taking control just as they wanted and it is also the reason why the anti-federalist disliked the Constitution. They believed the Constitution would make the nation turn into a tyranny like the British empire which is why they preferred the Articles of Confederation because it is what originally gave them the freedom of tyranny. They opposed having one government having all the power because they feared for the worst. 2. The reason why...
Words: 674 - Pages: 3
...The Antifederalist were not for the ratification of the constitution. They believed that the government could be easily corrupted. They were big believer of restraining government power. They were against the federalist papers because they had a lack of protection for individual freedoms. They wrote their own essays such as the “Centinel” against the federalist papers and it was to warn about the danger from tyranny. Samuel Bryan, the author of the letters of centinel, wrote: ‘Without presuming upon my own judgment, I cannot think in an unwarrantable presumption to offer my private opinion, and call upon others for their’s…” The Centinel purpose was to include a bill of rights in the new constitution and to adopt those rights. The Antifederalist achieve their goal and the federalists compromise with the bill of rights added to the Constitution. Many people say that the first amendment would not be here without the “intent of the Framers.”. But they did not adopt the first amendment. The Anti-federalist was still scared because the constitution did not really guarantee that the government could take people’s right to worship away. For example, the first amendment does not say that freedoms of speech or press shall not curtail, it only prevents congress to make laws against it. There is no way to truly understand the original intent of the first amendment other that the bill of rights was a compromise to the Anti-Federalists essays. The bill of rights was created to make sure...
Words: 651 - Pages: 3
...ever be liable to abuse.”(Madison, 1787) The Federalists, writing under the pseudonym Publius, advocated a strong central government in the new nation. They argued against the Anti-Federalist writers like Brutus, whose ideas of an effective government resided with stronger state governments. Both views of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists were justified in unifying the newly emancipated American colonies. While there is much debate on who theoretically won the political battle that resulted in the ratification of the constitution in 1789, it is clear that the modern American government no longer represents James Madison ideals of a balanced federal government. The current robust national government, has damaged Madison's ideals of federalism. In 1787 delegates from the colonies of the newly-formed United States of America met in Philadelphia to ratify a new constitution. The purpose behind the intention to create a new constitution for the United States of America was due to the weakness of America's first constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation. Although there was support to ratify a new constitution based on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, there were many delegates who still supported aspects of the Articles of Confederation. For this reason, the issue of a new constitution and aspects of the articles of confederation would draw the lines between two opposing parties. The Federalists, led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, strongly supported...
Words: 1502 - Pages: 7
...Marshall's decision in the case Marbury vs. Madison was and how our entire Supreme Court and country's politics would be different if he had not made the decision. John Marshall's decision to declare that the Supreme Court could not give out writs of mandamus and thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 (that gave out this power) was unconstitutional set the precedent for the Supreme Court to have the power to declare a law unconstitutional with the principle of judicial review. With this decision, he gave the Judiciary Branch as much power as the other two branches, and also stressed the power of the national government over the states. Without this decision, the states could be the final authority in determining if laws are unconstitutional and federalism would have been minimized. The states would not respect the decisions of the federal government. In this case, William Marbury, a Federalist and a “midnight appointment” of President John Adams, did not receive his commission from the new Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a “writ of mandamus” forcing Madison to deliver his commission. Marshall dismissed suit, but in doing so struck down part of Judiciary Act of 1789 because the Supreme Court had no authority to give Marbury his commission. This was significant because it established the precedent of “judicial review” and that the Supreme Court, not states, had power to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. Before...
Words: 530 - Pages: 3
...ASSESSMENT ON NIGERIAN FEDERALISM: PATH TO A TRUE FEDERAL SYSTEM BY: IRABOR PETER ODION 07037830536 p24real2000@yahoo.com DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL STUDIES, FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) POTISKUM, YOBE STATE BEING A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE 4TH ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY COLLEGES OF EDUCATION ACADEMICS STAFF UNION (COEASU) FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) POTISKUM CHAPTER HELD AT I.B.B HALL F.C.E (T) POTISKUM, YOBE STATE 31ST OCTOBER, 2011-4TH NOVEMBER 2011 ABSTRACT It is no gain saying that Nigeria is one of those countries that operates a federal system of government along side with the western world. Given the territorially delineated cleavages abounding in Nigeria and the historical legacy of division among ethnic groups, regions, and sections, the federal imperative was so fundamental that even the military government- characteristically Unitarian, hierarchical, and centralist- attached importance to the continuation of a federal system of government. But it must be said here that, while the system benefit most western countries, the reverse is the case for Nigeria considering the high level of political instability, ethnic crisis, and ethno/religious crisis among others The reason is not far fetch; Nigeria is operating a federal system in an awkward manner and this has make frictions and clashes possible which are currently posing a threat to her political development. To this end, this paper seeks to analyze Nigerian federalism from history, reasons...
Words: 6625 - Pages: 27
...The Anti-Federalists The debate between federalists and anti-federalists was very intense during the time the constitution was ratified. The anti-federalists wished to prevent a surplus of power in the national government by giving states the supreme power. Federalists wanted a larger central government for a good military and law enforcement. The anti-federalists had the most liberty under their form of government. One problem the federalists had with their form of government was that it would allow the majority to infringe of the rights of the individuals. James Madison explained this in the federalist papers, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. If the views of the faction become the will of the majority of people, there is nothing to stop them from trampling on the rights of those who have different views. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” One thing that the anti-federalists wanted to prevent was peoples rights being taken by groups of special interests. Another problem with the federalists is that they didn’t want the states to have the right to secede. Hamilton explains it this way, “All men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive … The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers.” So Hamilton wanted a strong executive branch...
Words: 501 - Pages: 3
...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 to...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...Tussle between Judiciary and Media Judiciary is the only istitute in Pakistan who is giving fair to masses and cheif justice Iftikhar chaudry is the only person who keep maintain judiciary but unfortunatly our federal government are making conflict with judiciary and impacts shows on on the poor people of pakistan.ppp colition parties and opposition are standing like dumb and enjoying the play.in this situation judiciary is grace for us from allah but govt is making rumours against judiciary.some months ago they traped Arsalan iftikhar in a case through Malik riaz and try hard to defame the judiciary and iftikhar chaudry but chief justice is still is on his way and govt is keeping on publishment of scandles against judiciary when supreme court disqualified ex.pm Gillani after this tregidy the War started b/w them benefits and advantages are being received by foriegn agencies.colition parties are also consoliding the federal govt.in rental power case supreme court issued the warrant of pm raja ashraf.these all shows that the pppp is guilty and they should mind their ways if this tussle b/w these continue then i think no one will save the image and base of pakistan.on the other end pakistan is debtor of world bank and Imf and passing through wave of terrorism no one is thinking about it that what will be the Future of pakistan they must united and should find a...
Words: 262 - Pages: 2
...------------------------------------------------- too many cooks spoil the broth ------------------------------------------------- It means that if too many people try to do the same thing, they end up ruining it. If you have too many cooks trying to cook one broth or soup, they get in each other's way and end up adding the wrong things. It means that a simple thing like a broth (or a movie script) is better when it doesn't have many authors contributing to it. If more than one cook handles one pot of soup the ingredients like salt, for example, may be doubled or tripled (according to how many cooks handle the pot) thus spoiling it. Too many people trying to do the same thing together are likely to ruin the job. if too many people are involved in something it often gets too complicated. if its used it means that some people need to back off When too many people take charge on a task, it might end up ruining the whole thing. Rosalind is a fictional character and the romantic female lead in the play As You Like It (1600) by William Shakespeare. She is the daughter of the exiled Duke Senior and niece to his usurping brother Duke Frederick. Her father is banished from the kingdom which breaks her heart. She then meets Orlando and falls in love with him. After angering her uncle, she leaves his court for exile in the Forest of Arden. There, she lives disguised as a shepherd named Ganymede with her sweet and devoted cousin, Celia, disguised as his sister, Aliena and...
Words: 2317 - Pages: 10
...As transportation in America has continued to evolve and expand in America the transportation policy has lacked the same evolvement and growth. Faced with an ever growing population and an economy that depends on transportation more than ever, American transportation network is based on a policy that has not been significantly updated since the 1950’s. With a policy that is so out of date it has become increasingly hard to secure funding to maintain and build new roads, this is where the issue of federalism arrives. Working with the federal, state and local government there has to be a solution to the transportation policy. The Transportation Policy as we know it today started as the Interstate program according to Shirayanagi, H., & Kitamura, Y. (2011) “in 1956 also called the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, appropriated $25 billion (about $197 billion in 2009 dollars) to build 41,000 miles of multi-lane, limited access highways.” (p.253) While it was done to connect states and make it easier for economic center to connect it helped develop travel within cities themselves. These highways were built with 90 percent federal funding the only problem was that the local government did not get any money to improve the transportation systems. Fast-forward to August 2005 according to Shirayanagi, H., & Kitamura, Y. (2011) “ the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: (SAFETEA-LU) which is our current transportation policy signed by President George W. Bush...
Words: 935 - Pages: 4
...Use your knowledge of the era of 1785-1788 and the documents provided to answer the following question: What were the major arguments that surfaced in opposition to the new Constitution proposed in 1787? How did supporters of the Constitution counter those arguments? Previous attempts to change the Articles of Confederation had failed because the approval of every state was required. There was often one or more recalcitrant member of the union. For example, Rhode Island even refused to take part in the framing; opposition to a new constitution was certainly formidable. Consequently, the Convention discarded the provision of unanimous approval and adopted the notion that the new Constitution would pass with only the approval of nine states. The draft of the new constitution called for an ultimate executive leader. This was extremely controversial, as the nation had been founded to escape the practice of having a single leader. However, it was generally admitted that the Articles of Confederation were a failure because the people had too much voice. The national government could not impose or collect taxes, and they could not forcibly uphold the law to any state. The problem that needed to be overcome was whether the separate states would cast aside their provinciality and become a single body under the federal structure. Those supporting the ratification of the constitution called themselves Federalists, and those against it became known as Antifederalists. Federalists...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...PA 584 Week 6 Intergovernmental Management You Decide Assignment The ethical issue at hand is that the FEMA Training Manager Jim Phanner, who is also in charge of providing the federal grant to the state, is trying to persuade me to use the service of one of his friend’s company. Jim mentioned that he is the one who was in charge of providing the grant and that his friend Pat Provedor, who is a sales representative at Timo Manufacturing company and that his services should be utilized. Jim is trying to push me to use Pat’s company and advising that he may be invite me to watch the game in the company’s skybox as an exchange for the business that he will receive. Competitive bidding would be useful in this case because the state would want to go for the cheapest bid but in addition to the most reliable company so that it shows that federal dollars are not being used wastefully. The only impediment that I see is that the Timo Manufacturing Company that was mentioned is not trying to negotiate and it was stated by Jim that they may not be the cheapest but they are good. In this case it poses a problem because there is a small amount of time that I have to make a decision as to the company that I should use. My supervisor Justine White also mentioned that she wants it be done in all efficiency because she wants good press to come out of this. If I were...
Words: 602 - Pages: 3
...V SEMESTER B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) COURSE ARTICLE SUBMISSION A Critical Analysis of Evolution of Cooperative Federalism and Obstacles Ahead for Its Development For the academic year 2014-15 Prepared & Submitted by: Submitted To : Bharat Singh (12BAL112) Ms. Alinkrita Tripathi Acknowledgment This study is the culmination of the efforts of a number of individuals and organizations. I gratefully acknowledge the support and inspiration of which helped me to accomplish this project. I gratefully acknowledge all the sources from which this report has been enriched. Though I have taken all efforts to make the report flawless, I take responsibility for any mistake appearing inadvertently. DECLARATION I hereby declare that the project work entitled “A Critical Analysis of Evolution of Cooperative Federalism and Obstacles Ahead for Its Development” submitted to the Institute of Law Nirma University, is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Ms. Alinkrita Tripathi who is the Assistant Professor in ILNU. The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any other University or Institute for the any award or degree. A Critical Analysis of Evolution of Cooperative Federalism and Obstacles Ahead for Its Development India is the largest democracy which is reason of pride for every Indian. Democracy always reflects view of majority, so now question arises what about those people who are in minority or culturally diverse but still they are...
Words: 2742 - Pages: 11
...Seminar One Essay Test The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Due to some long outstanding amendments, Congress will normally put a time limit for the bill to be approved as an amendment which is typically seven years. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. The Bill of Rights were passed due to the fact that the Federalists basically horse traded with several states to get the constitution ratified. It still was no easy task getting the Bill of Rights ratified. James Madison had to go through and pick out the best ideas from state conventions as he drafted the Bill of Rights. The rights protected individuals from the federal government trampling their rights. Due to the recent war with England and the oppression of the King fresh in mind the Bill of Rights was...
Words: 830 - Pages: 4
...government. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States would be because of the governments growing power. The previous constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, gave the states more authority. “Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.“ The group of supporters that wanted to put the Constitution into place were known as the Federalists, they got their name from the term “federalism” which implies a strong central government. Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules in which the power to govern is shared between the state and national governments, creating a federation. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.”...
Words: 306 - Pages: 2
