How could the founding fathers save the Union and “secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?” (Constitution) They designed the constitution to rejected the democratic Articles to embrace a constitutional form of a republic government. So that the freedom of the people would be ensured by protecting their liberty from the corruptible nature of man. Any form of “Constitutional degeneration was the technical definition of ‘corruption’...corruption was the normal direction of constitutional change” ( Banning, 174) “Pride of independence deep and dangerous hold on the hearts of many of the state politicians” ( Bennett, 112) The leadership under the Articles at the state level was more democratic. However, was heading towards oligarchy, because these men who were in power often only concern themselfs with their own state, and competing with other states to benefit their state or goals. The politicians were using their power to .
A strong central government would help unify the nation under one rule. A federal government wo... ... middle of paper ... ... nation without a form of centralized government or the Constitution, but there were still faults in this idea. One of the main concerns was federal government, many believed that there should only be power in the states. While a state government can better judge the needs of its citizens, this may disunify the nation into creating separate countries. Not only that, but without a federal government to settle conflicts between states, there could be an escalation into war among them.
The anti federalist actually fought for these rights to be added to the Constitution in which the federalist was against. The federalist felt that the separation of powers and federalism protected the people from abuse of power. Anti federalist was against the Constitution and would only give approval if further protection was added to protect Americans from the federal government. The Bill of Rights consist of the first ten amendments of the Constitution and gave U.S. Citizens freedoms and rights, while placing limitations on the federal government. The Bill of Rights prevented the government from promoting one religion over another, from prohibiting press, carrying out illegal searches and procedures, pressuring to house military, prevention of being tried twice in the court of law, etc.
It was these ideals that essentially led to the development of the Anti-Federalists who feared that such great allocations of power to centralized government would lead to a centralized rule that could not be controlled. Once the Federalists had control of the federal government, the fears of the Anti-Federalists quickly came to fruition. Although the Anti-Federalists were in opposition to the actions and strength of the federal government under Federalist control, certain accommodations were made to appease some Anti-Federalists. The main one being that Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the Anti-Federalists was made vice-president after losing in a presidential
In writing the Constitution, the Framers were aiming to rectify the states’ inadequate attempt at establishing a democratic government. They wanted to create a stronger government while simultaneously keeping it a democracy and protecting the Peoples’ power within it. Wary of monarchy, they intended to constrain their envisioned government’s power by creating checks and balances between and within its branches. Did they do a good enough job? In Section I, we see the Framers’ intentions for the legislature’s lower chamber to be the government’s source of democracy.
The Anti-Federalist Papers documented the political background in which the Constitution was born. The Anti-Federalist saw threats to rights and authorizations in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. A central government is the political authority that governs the entire nation. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government.
This balancing act has intricately-designed backup plans and safety valves that keep any one level of government from gaining more power than is good for it. To abolish the Electoral College would dispose of some issues, but a direct vote for President carries problems of its own. Calls for a popular vote for president invite democratic principles that seem wonderful, but, untempered, are dangerous and destructive to free societies. Such movements to amend our Constitution threaten to chip away at the protections put in place to preserve our nation. Demands to reduce our governmental functions to purely democratic ones eerily resemble the mob behavior that would inevitably ensue should the Constitution be changed in favor of senseless ramblings about democracy.
I’m an advocate of the democratic and efficiency critique and that is why I believe the United States should change its Constitution because it gives too much power to the central government, it allows for winner take-all elections, and fails to take adequate responsibility. An alternative form of government that I believe the United States should try instituting is the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system provides a more democratic and accountable government. The democratic critique views our government as not democratic enough due to the government’s presidential system because it gives central government too much power. The delegates couldn’t predict how the country and democracy could evolve.
The Constitution gave Congress no specific authorization to issue charters of incorporation ·Unless Congress adhered to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, critics argue, the central government might oppress the states and trample individual liberties, just as Parliament had done to the colonies ·The president accepted Hamilton’s cogent argument for a loose interpretation of the Constitution ·Tariffs doubly injured the majority of citizens, first by imposing heavy import taxes that were passed on to consumers and then by reducing the incentive for American manufacturers to produce goods at a lower cost than imports HAMILTON’S LEGACY ·Despite the Federalists’ effort to associate themselves with the Constitution they actually favored a “consolidated” (Centralized) national government instead of a truly federal system with substantial powers left to the states ·Resentment ran high among those who felt that the government appeared to be rewarding special interests ·Southern reaction to Hamilton’s program was overwhelmingly negative ·The Band of the United States had few southern stockholders and it allocated very little capital for loans there THE WHISKY REBELLION ·Hamilton’s financial program not only sparked an angry political debate in Congress but also helped ignite a civil insurrection called the Whiskey Rebellion ·Hamilton had recommended an excise tax on domestically produced whiskey. He insisted that his proposal would distribute the expense of financing the national debt evenly across the United States ·The law furthermore specified that all trials concerning tax evasion be conducted in federal courts
Accordingly, there is danger in having an all-powerful state because personal freedoms are lost. More so, there is power in having knowledge that others do not possess because it is a gateway for the government to control the public if scientific and technological advances are been made. As mentioned before, governments prosper when there is stability and commodification is way of the government achieving that although it does alter human behavior. On the other hand, some would argue that modern society is based on democracy and a controlled state as depicted in Brave New World is impossible to occur but there are indicators in society today that serve as a resemblance. Brave New World emphasizes that the dangers of an all-powerful state, power of knowledge, and commodification are detrimental to modern society.