More handpicked essays just for you.
Responses about federalism
Critically analyze federalism in the United states
Critically analyze federalism in the United states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Responses about federalism
Anti-Federalism: a movement which refers to opposing the creation of a stronger U.S. I chose anti-federalists as my government because in my opinion they are better than federalists. I have this opinion because federalists only think about themselves, and not about anyone else, because of that they have better rights, self determination, and democracy. I feel like they are more caring in a way, by that i mean they let farmers have land, so they can take care of themselves. For democracy reasons they let everyone have a say, before anything happens. I think anti-federalists are better for our world because they will be able to let us have more freedom. They are more willing to hear your opinion, and not just going on and doing something. I
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
The leaders of the anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry from Virginia, George Mason from Virginia, Richard Henry Lee from Virginia, James Monroe from Virginia, George Clinton from New York, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, Luther Martin from Maryland, and Samuel Chase from Maryland. The anti-Federalist leaders were men who had their careers and reputations already established. The anti-Federalists were the losers in the Constitution debate. They had accepted their defeat very well. They did not attempt to create problems and start fights or wars. Instead some leaders became well-known leaders in the government. James Monroe was the fifth president. George Clinton, along with Elbridge Gerry became vice presidents. Samuel Chase was in the Supreme Court. The anti-Federalists brought awareness to the subject matter of giving more power to the government and how dangerous it could be. They thought the Constitution could be improved with a bill of rights. They brought awareness to why our government needed to include a bill of rights. They wanted one to protect the rights of the people and the states. The anti-Federalists found the ratification process unreliable. They were correct because the Articles of Confederation stated it being
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to be a functional independent nation.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
The Federalist wanted all thirteen states to be united as one, and in doing they they wanted each state to have two Senators representing them in congress for everyone to have an equal say. The Antifederalist Worried that the states would lose their individual power to have local control and this is why they strongly opposed the formation of the Senate and the Constitution. Because of the Antifederalist view on liberal state ruling, they had a dispute in fighting for states rights in the 1800s. The Bill of Rights was crucial to the Antifederalist because it gave the states some right back to govern themselves and run a little on there own laws. However,
Regarding the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists (otherwise known as the Democratic-Republican Party or the Jeffersonians), held drastically different opinions.2 The Federalists, for one, believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, where only those words directly stated in the Constitution were to grant permission for pow...
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
Big supporters of the tenth amendment were anti-federalist. Anti-federalist are people who oppose a strong central government.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.