Essay about The Threat of the Constitution

The Anti-Federalists argued that their form of government was more effective. They argued many points that were reasonable. Brutus wrote that he feared that our government would be controlled by a group of elites, and he thought that these elites would abuse the people’s rights by just doing what would only benefit them. Brutus thought once the elites started running our country, that they would be in power for a long time and no one could change their minds on certain views. (Brutus 1).

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

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.

There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

Hamilton created a financial system and national bank that solved the countries debt problem. The Anti-Federalists held the opposite views. They were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. The party mostly consisted of farmers who lived in the south. They objected the new powerful central government, the loss of prestige for the states, and saw the Constitution as a potential danger to personal liberties. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its monarch rule completely dominated the people. Jefferson believed that the Federalists’ acted as monocrats (Doc 5). The Anti-Federalists strongly supported state rights, but were opposed to a national bank because they didn’t want a strong central government (Doc 2). Local control was crucial to Antifederalists’ concept of democracy. The differences in political parties and philosophies led to the opposing opinions on government issues. Disagreements between Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s viewpoints involving a national bank, constitution interpretations, and social differences led to the rise of political parties.

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 early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

In America’s earliest politics, there had always been two main groups, the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. In what is known as the Jacksonian era our political structure was adapting (Document 6), which made space for a totally new system. Both of those groups represented very different ideals and that’s why they were prominent for so long, any goals set forth by one party the other often opposed. Andrew Jackson’s most impactful contribution to politics would be awakening the common man to politics. Separation of the rich from the poor was becoming a big issue (Document 1) because as it’s been shown, only money can get recognition.

The Federalist were aware of the people’s fears, but they were just hungry for a strong central government. The danger of a strong central government is a threat to the state governments, and is a threat against citizens own rights. During the 1780’s to 1790’s the U.S. was still in a trial and error period. These were the building years of the U.S. government.

In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.

Those who opposed the centralization of government were the Anti-Federalists, they knew that the system would eventually pose a threat to the rights of the people. There were several issues that were cause for concern to the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was proposed. These issues were the sole power of taxation, the lack of protection of freedoms, the lack of representation, the dissolving of the state’s powers, and above

Federalists were in favor of a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. Thus, they decided that “only a well-educated group of elected officials should be trusted to make decisions for the good of all.” (Doc 3). Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the creation of a stronger federal government and thus later opposed the ratification of the Constitution; they emphasized individual and state rights. They decided that “freedoms of citizens will not be trampled over by a strong national government.” As a result, they opposed the “rule of a few privileged individuals [overpowering] the will of average citizens.” (Doc

While the anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy or aristocracy, the Federalists vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation.

Furthermore, in his article he illustrates the ideas that the Anti-federalists tha,t in theory, surpass the ideology of the Federalists. While the Anti-Federalists, who were in favor of strong state rights lost the debate a the constitutional convention, their argumentation the federalists stood unprecedented and correct. Due to the Federalists skeptical and excessive interpretation of the constitution, many vague laws and clauses could be perceived enabling the

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.