Anti Federalists Pros And Cons

In the debate our class held between the federalists and anti-federalists, set at a convention where the basis of the Constitution would be decided. Based on the arguments presented and the background information we have learned throughout the course, the anti-federalists' side made the better case. Almost all of the support provided for federal rights was countered with valid information from the time period or did not weaken the points made for states' rights. Our team, the proponents of states rights, made the points that the large states could dominate the federal government and make decisions that do not reflect the population's wishes as completely as possible. We went on to argue that the powerful central government could come to oppress

The arguments that the federalist team pushed for the most were the failure of the Articles of Confederation to lay the foundation for a proficient economy, and to give the federal government executive power. The first of these problems can be solved in our Constitution without placing state governments under the federal government. If, following the ratification of the Constitution, states weren't divided by population issues, they would soon realize that a common currency and lack of tariffs would be in their best interests. The decision to could be made by the representatives in a slightly more decisive Congress without the need of a super-majority, which even advocates of decentralized government could agree to. The federalists argued with the preconception that our side was not willing to change from the Articles of Confederation other than in name, which isn't true. Anti-federalists felt that the Articles had to be dismantled and only some pieces were valuable enough to become a part of the Constitution, mainly the level of autonomy given to state governments. While it is true that a weaker federal government could not enforce its own laws to the best extent, our arguments regarding the possible slide back into