Bill Of Rights Vs Federalism Essay

483 Words1 Page

With the Bill of Rights being my favorite topic about the constitution, to me and many people, the it’s one of the most essential papers given. It protects the natural rights of the citizens and are the ones that people use the most. It differentiates the United States from the rest of the countries by providing us with many types of liberties from the countries that most of the times don’t grant the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, and in extreme cases, don’t even have freedom of religion for their citizens. The federalists might never have obtained the ratification of several important states if they had not promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution because most of the state constitutions adopted during the revolution included a very specific declaration of the rights of all people. …show more content…

Each side had their own opinions and way of thinking, leading them to disagreements. Hamilton, while recognizing the benefits of the territorial and Institutional division of power, leaves no doubt that he prefers a concentration to a dispersion of power. It implies the superiority of federal legislation on the state and the possibility of executing that federal law within the States. Madison, on the contrary, emphasizes the benefits of a federal government mainly because it creates balances of power, that is, emphasizes the value of the Member States. For him, federalism is an institution designed to protect States, and while recognizing that sovereignty ultimately lies in central government, federalism would not be compatible with the concentration of power in the hands of the state. He argues that a confederation would tend to reduce the power of the central government. Between Hamilton (anti-federalist 84) and Madison (Federalist 10), I believe the anti federalist have a stronger argument. While Madison

Open Document