Views of an Original Federalist from the Pre-Constitutional Era

“You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.”

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

From the years 1789 through 1800, Federalist went through many harsh conditions. There were many disputes between the Federalist Party, led by Hamilton, and the Republicans, led by Jefferson. The events that created the most trouble for the Federalists and were most significant in the development of the Federalist Party were creating a national bank, how to pay the national debt, and establishing the public credit. Overall, the Federalists faced more of an economic challenge than anything else.

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

Federalist papers are one of the most important series of essays government papers and are being used against the Anti-federalist that are trying to ratify the constitution. Madison has written Federalist 10 for main purpose of discussing the word “factions”. What madison says in any government, “people are going to inevitably join factions and have common interest”. What madison fears is that the largest faction of them all, equal distribution of property and he is saying because of the division of property and a few with a lot and a lot without anything and the largest faction is going to be the poor. Since the majority is the poor working class men this might create tension and a disagreement of ideas that are dissimilar then the wealthy few. Madison says there is only two things you can

reated in 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America is the establishment of the US government (Ball 7). It is maintained as one of the longest serving political understandings ever. The Constitutions was acknowledged after an enduring political tussle between two contradicting sides called the Federalists and Anti-Federalists parties. The two equaling sides had thoughts of either destroying or offering some kind of reparation to the Constitution keeping in mind the end goal to concoct another variant that would be friendlier to the general population. The time of the Federalist finished into two political gatherings known as the Federal party and the Anti-Federalist party (Democratic Republican Party). This occurred somewhere around 1789 and 1801 when the Federalist Party overwhelmed the American political field.

The federalists believed that the US needed a strong central government in order to become one nation. They felt that having 13 small governments was a weakness to the country. Alexander Hamilton, a very well-known federalist and one of the authors of the Federalist papers, believed that having 13 governments was chaotic and could be fixed by having only one strong central government. The federalists saw one central government as a need in order to restore peace unto the states. They felt that the economy was unstable and could only be fixed if the states came together as a nation under one government. Anti-federalists feared that having one central government would mean that they'd be stripped of their basic civil liberties. Many of the anti-federalists

Vote: The constitution should be ratified for several reasons. Although one of the main issues is the lack of a bill of rights, the document is as close to perfect as possible. Government will always be imperfect and there will always be an individual or a group of people who disagree, however, that's what makes the nation a democracy. The constitution appears to be as flexible as possible and will allow for future generations to adapt it to current problems. The balance of power between the people and the government is as equally divided as possible and allows for checks and balances to assure that each branch of government will not gain too much power. Because the United States was created as a result of tyranny and the violation of civil

After the Americans won the Revolutionary War, the Americans feared a central government that was too powerful. To meet these wishes The Articles of Confederation were created, it had a weak central government and gave states the overall power. This was running the United States into the ground, which is not what was planned. They decided a change was necessary to save their country. Each representative from the thirteen colonies came together to write The Constitution. The supporters of ratifying the constitution were called Federalists and those against ratifying it were called Anti-Federalists.

When the members of the Constitutional Convention, after several months of vigorous debating, finally finished their work, many of the members still objected to this document. The Federalists were the group of people who desired to get the finished new constitution ratified and the Anti-Federalists were the group of people who disliked the new constitution and believed it shouldn't be ratified because it was missing several key parts. The Anti-Federalists formulated arguments based on the weaknesses they found in the new constitution and used them against the Federalists in order to gain support, while the Federalists convinced citizens of the righteousness of the new constitution in order to gain their support.

The constitutional debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists has been a continuous dispute that affects everyone and one can no longer ignore this predicament. The Federalists believe in the Constitution and think it is ideal just the way it is, and continuously defend it against the Anti-Feds. The Anti-Federalists do not necessarily believe the Constitution to be entirely horrible, but they rather think it can be improved with the help of the Bill of Rights, a document that directly states the rights a citizen possesses. Both groups have been going back and forth on what actions must or must not be taken, and it is time for everyone to choose which side they are going to defend. As citizens of America who deserve to be treated

Throughout the duration of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, America’s citizens became separated in their political views. Citizens who preferred constraint upon the powers of the state along with a strong central government represented the Federalist Party. Framing the basis of the government and economy, Federalists enhanced the prevalence of foreign policies while shaping the national judicial system. This essay will provide a comprehensive, detailed synopsis of the political perspectives and viewpoints of the members of the Federalist Party. Using primary sources and content analysis, this essay will discuss what the Federalist Party believed about the role of the government and the reasoning behind why they adopted their views.

The document was ratified by 9 out of the 13 states. To generate support for ratification The Federalist was published. In the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton argued that the there was a perfect balance of liberty and power created by the Constitution.

After reading our textbook chapters for this week's assignment I was lucky to learn about the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.The establishment of the US Constitution was brought with a heated debate concerning the future of our nation.These certain debates basically led to the establishment of two of the opposing camps.One of the opposing camps was the Federalists however,there opposing opponent was the Anti-Federalist.Both of their agruments concerns the role of our national government and its power over the interest of the general public.However,they both stood on a totally different ground.The Anti-Federalists agrued that they couldn't

In the Anti-federalist number one it states that there is a lot of risk in accepting the constitution, because it has the potential to solve a lot of the nation’s problems but it could also backfire. Theoretically if the constitution does solve the nation’s problems our future generations to come will reap the rewards and benefits, but, if it doesn’t succeed the future citizens of our nation will blame the founders and will lack their God given liberty. The document states that creating a strong central government (which is what the Constitution is trying to establish), would leave the people venerable (unlike the Articles of Confederation), which provide the states with all the power. In the Constitution it does state that it would share the