Should The Constitution Allow The Balance Of Power

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

The bill of rights is a popular document that was not originally in the US constitution, but anti federalists wanted a bill of rights really bad because supposedly they were afraid of a strong central government. They did not want another king so some states refused the constitution until there was a bill of rights. Along with being afraid of a central government they wanted a limited government so that government could not control them. The anti federalists also thought the government would not protect their individual rights enough so they wanted a bill of rights.

The Anti-federalists opposed the Constitution because they believed it did not secure their rights and gave the government too much power. (2) Patrick Henry, an Anti-federalist from Virginia said that the constitution took away the states rights to be individual and to make separate decisions as well. (4) The Federalists saw the Anti-federalists complaint and realized that in order for the Constitution to be passed, they would need a Bill of Rights. (6) This Bill of Rights would give rights to the people and the states. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification by congress, but the states only ratified 10 of them. They became know as the Bill of Rights which made most

The Anti-Federalist Papers recognized that the people one in power “can seldom or never resume it again but by force”. The establishment of a single law that would be equally applied to all states and where the power would be vested in a central government represented, for the anti-federalists, the condition of the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. “Nor the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given”. Anti-Federalist Papers established their fear on having a judicial branch that would overrule over the state courts without attending to the necessity of the local people, as well, the congress would be able to limit the decisions of the national state if it would affect the well-being of the whole nation, again, limiting the purpose of the national government on the pursuit of happiness of its own

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

The Federalists wanted a strong central government, I feel that the Bill of Rights helps strengthen the government by giving it structure and giving it a backbone so it could grow as the nation grows. This is why I felt that the Anti-Federalists held a stronger position in debate. The Constitution is an important document for the condition of the nation, but the Bill of Rights, and the freedom of the people, is equally as

The Anti-Federalist party was made up of people who, for the most part, lived in the country. They were opposed to developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution, which, they claimed, threatened each free person’s liberites, until the authors included the Bill of Rights. (This granted individual rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists wanted to write down these so that they could not be taken away from the people by the government like England had done.) Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power to prevent monarchies and dictatorships. Famous members of this party were Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Mercy Otis Warren, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. They favored the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation had a few flaws: if a law was to pass, it would need a majority rule (9/13); it lacked a court system (nationally); and it was missing an executive branch. The Bill of Rights was appreciated because they wanted to make sure that individual rights could not be taken away. The Anti-Federalists may not have been a group that agreed with one another all the time, but as their opinions varied, more rights were thought of and protected. For example, one part of the group held the view that the sovereignty of states could be endangered

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

Then there were Anti- Federalists who believed that the bulk of duties should continue to be left to each state's own discretion, so that there would be no misrepresentation of the people it governed. It's left to say that neither side saw eye to eye, but would eventually reach a "compromise", the Federalists would institute their version of the Constitution which had a clear notion of Central Government and it's duties. The Anti-Federalists would receive an additional amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights), which would protect the personal liberties they were convinced a Central Government would revoke. Both sides seemed fairly satisfied with the outcome, though there was still fear of that popular tyranny from the outside. But the act of tyranny they should have feared was their own, for the Framer's motives for creating a new constitution was really protecting the few (the rights of the Wealthy) against the many (the non-elite).

During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists and Anti Federalists disagreed on many aspects of the Constitution.The Federalists wanted a strong central government while the Anti Federalists were more for state rights. That is just a small fraction of the many arguments that these two factions disagreed upon. The Constitution was eventually ratified with the Federalists compromising with the Anti Federalists by adding The Bill of Rights, a list of the general rights that a citizen was entitled to. Although the Bill of Rights gives us our inalienable rights, the government has compromised our rights to a significant extent many times in history due to fear, corruption, and control.

In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and

The Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights, the Anti- Federalists believed that this was yet another example of there being no limit on the centralized government’s power, and there was no protection for the

America needed a new government since the Articles of Confederation had failed. The Articles lacked a strong Central government. The Constitution was made to be a superior document compared to the Articles of Confederation. Federalists believed that the Constitution was created to provide a strong national government, while Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution was taking away the powers of the people.

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.

On one side, many of the framers, who called themselves Federalist, did not want to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. The Federalist feared that a bill of rights would do the opposite of protecting our freedoms. They also believed that a bill of rights was essentially showing that we get our natural freedoms from government. However, in reality