Federalist vs. Antifederalists
Upon the writing of the Constitution, two camps were set forth between our founding political elite: the Federalists, who agreed with the principles in the Consitution and wanted to ratify it, and the Anti-Federalists, a group who felt the Constitution went too far and aimed to block its ratification. Both of these "political parties", if you will, wrote many articles and speeches explaining their viewpoints and attempting to sway common opinion to their side. Ultimately, the Constitution was passed, but the problems that the Ant-Federalists saw with the Consitution are issues we still debate today.
Who do you side with - The Federalists or the Anti-Federalists? Be sure to back up your opinion with evidence you have learned from reading the articles. Keep the debate civil please. Up-vote only those comments that add to the discussion and use evidence, and do not down-vote based on your opinion.
*This debate is for a classroom activity. Please do not post here unless you are from HCHS Honors Government class.
Federalists
Side Score: 23
|
 |
Anti-Federalists
Side Score: 24
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
We need this Constitution to protect ourselves as a nation. This new Constitution will incite a sense of nationalism and protect our citizens from being miss treated by other statesmen in our country. The new Constitution will gives us federal laws which will be set to protect all men of this country and ensure that we as a country can protect ourselves from foreign powers. The states will still have the right to make there own laws as long an it doesn't go against federal law. The states will get equal say and there will be a balance of powers through the whole government. “Federalists.” Ushistory, Independence Hall Association , www.ushistory.org/us/16a.asp. Accessed 5 Sept. 2017. Side: Federalists
2
points
How could all the states possibly get "equal say" when they are not equal in size? The word should be equitable. States with a large population couldn't possibly have the same representation as the smaller states. And yes, the states may get to have their own laws within the state, but with the supremacy clause, states cannot override the federal law in any way, and must be subordinate. Side: Anti-Federalists
The constitution is what this nation desperately needs. It will separate the power so that there will be no one with all the power, so we will not have things in chaos as it was past weeks. This is the best document that will make the state of our situation to be better. Also with this we will become united with rules that we must all abide to, so we can stand together not by the state we are in, but by the country we are in. Also, this constitution will make it so we can “safeguard our liberty and independence”(ushistory.org). And you know that's cool.ヽ( ^ ‿ ^ )ﾉ Ushistory, Independence Hall Association , http://www.ushistory.org/us/16a.asp Accessed 5 Sept. 2017. Side: Federalists
1
point
How will we all as an entity, become united when our government is too big, and our federal courts can't represent anyone other than wealthy men, and no one of the hoi polloi? No one is going to abide because they are not represented within our government. Local and state governments are much safer for our liberties, and inequality wouldn't happen if we had them. Instead of taxes and funding being the same throughout the country, which can be an issue within the states, it will be based on the population and how the economy is in the state. Also the policies and laws that can get passed throughout the national government, that we weren't represented in, we can challenge them, or go out of our way to not enforce them within our state of those national laws. We wouldn't stand together we would just challenge it, until we were represented equally. Bloomp.net, "Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism", Wiseman, Ryan, https://bloomp.net/articles/benefitsfederalism.htm, accessed Tuesday, September 05, 2017 Side: Anti-Federalists
Federalism is based on the the british government and articles of confederation. Federalism is a compromise that eliminates certain disadvantages and is shared between national and state governments. Advantages are the laws are applied uniformly to all, decision making is done fast and efficiently( the government is closer to the people), and efforts seldom duplicate or contradict themselves. This federalism power is aso split up between branches of the government so one branch does not have more power than another and overtake the government. Side: Federalists
1
point
The problem with federalism is that it is still putting too much power in the government's hands. That's exactly why we don't want the British government to influence us too much. We just left them because they were restricting our freedoms. We need to put the decision making in the hands of the people. Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
Federalism does not put too much power in the government. The government is made up of state-elected representatives and multiple branches to keep each other in check. Giving all power to the people and having a direct democracy is too impractical. Citizens can oppose and reject the things that the government establishes. Side: Federalists
1
point
In federalism the power is split up between the state and the national government. The constitution assigns certain power to be the domain of a central government and others are more reserved to a state. This is much better than confederation because they have a weak central government but the states have so much power. This makes it fair for the government and the states to both make major decisions. Side: Federalists
Although the national government may overlook the position of the states on some issues the decisions that are made will be of greater benefit to the many instead of only benefiting the locals. By splitting the governmental powers between the branches of government and the states the government as a whole is stronger and represents all people in a more equal way. Side: Federalists
1
point
If the legislative branch is overlooked then let the impeachment process begin! The legislative branch is made up of state representatives who hold the sole power of impeachment. If the state governments feel their position is being neglected then the power to change this rests entirely in their hands. Side: Federalists
1
point
Without a strong central government there would be no unity in the states. With no unity our country would be vulnerable to dissension within the states and from outside. This may lead to civil war and the invasion of foreign powers. We already saw how well a weak central government played out with the Articles of Confederation. Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists Side: Federalists
1
point
We feel that the US government will become controlling and they will cause strife against other countries. The British government put foreign policy with their king and look where that ended. Many countries have revolted against the British empire. This principle can correlate with our president and putting to much power with him. He can become corrupted. Side: Anti-Federalists
Although yes, this is a valid argument, i will say that there is only very few similarities between the king and the president, unlike our European counterparts our leader can in fact be taken out of power as fast as he/she has been put in. In a case of that happening, it will be up to the people to choose their next leader. Side: Federalists
1
point
The outcome of receiving a strong national government in the process of ratifying the constitution would play a key part of managing the debt and easing the tensions from the American revolution. Having a strong government that could help regulate economy would also eliminate smaller civil disputes in situations that would be prone to a lot of arguing. Also included with the ratification of the constitutions would be a national bank that people would have access to and people wouldn't have to worry about losing their money. Another point would be that all of the states would get an equal say and would all be given the same responsibilities and naturally, a balance of powers would follow. “Anti-Federalists vs. Federalists.” www.diffen.com Diffen > Politics > U.S Politics http://www.diffen.com/difference/ Side: Federalists
1
point
It might be true, about how the government can help with the debt. This how ever is not wanted, because we didn't want taxes. We already have state taxes and adding another tax on top will not make the people happy. You say the the constitution is there to unify the states and the people but these taxes will not help. We don't have the money for that, we are already in debt because of the war. Adding another tax is not helping the cause. Tenth Amendment Center.com, "Federalist #12: To tax or not to tax," Maharrey Mike, Hamilton Alexander, http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/ Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
1
point
1
point
The fact of the matter is, the United States was falling into chaos under the Articles of Confederation which gave a majority of the power to the state governments. There was no unity in our country and as such pertinent things to the success of a nation, such as trade, were greatly affected. We were so consumed with the idea that a strong central government would lead to tyranny that we did not consider the benefits provided through the Constitution. As a new nation fresh out of war we were heavy in debt and without a way to pay it off. According to the limitations of the congress under the Articles of Confederation, the weak central government could only ask to borrow money and had no way of paying it back. With the divide amongst our people, caused by strong state governments, and the financial situation that we were facing the people of America were left open to exactly what they feared the most. In our weakened state we were vulnerable to a foreign attack. Due to the fact that we were not organized or united there is good chance that had another nation tried to take over, America would have lost the war and we would be under the rule of another. The probability of said nation having some form of a monarchy is high as that was the most common governing system of the time. As for the concerns pertaining to the power of a strong central government, the legislative branch was completely comprised of representatives of each state. The House Representatives was given the power of impeachment while the Senate was given the power to try any potential impeachment. This means that it was solely the responsibility of the states to ensure that anyone who held some form of public office within the government did not abuse their powers. With this system set in place the chances of the central government becoming tyrannical was little to none. To further reduce this possibility each position had a term and after each term those who held said positions would have to be voted back in. Evidence: I read the constitution https://www.constituteproject.org/ Side: Federalists
|
3
points
The proposed government is a complete affront to our individual liberties and freedoms. Why should the government have so much power? Do they think we're incapable of governing ourselves? More government means more corruption. These federal courts could not possibly be able to represent the average citizen. You and I. That's why local and state governments should have the power. We should be able to make the laws that affect our lives. Not some politician on the hill. ushistory.org, Antifederalists, U.S. History Online, http://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp. Tuesday, September 05, 2017 Side: Anti-Federalists
By having a centralized government that oversees the country we remove the likelihood of easily corrupted locals having all of the power in their areas. Although corruption can occur in any government someone that is more removed from the area they are governing is less likely to be easily bribed and corrupted by those they are governing. A centralized government is more likely to pass laws according to the greater good versus a local government that would be more worried about what they want. Side: Federalists
2
points
As Yoeman said, the federal government should not have so much power! Us average citizens are perfectly capable of governing ourselves. And yes, we'd be worried about what we want, but we wouldn't just base it on that. We'd take everyone's opinions int consideration. Corruption is likely to happen in any form of government, but with all the power in the hands of the federal government, catastrophic corruption will happen. Side: Anti-Federalists
3
points
Our government would have too much power, and become too controlling. The Constitution would enforce that and shortly after only favor wealthy businessmen, which would threaten the state and common people. We believe in having a local government, and having everyone heard. Rather than having our government become national and becoming too big. The average citizen would become a mere speck within our government, and we would not be represented equally among people of a higher class. Local and state governments should have the power, instead of creating a national government because of the fear and happenings of tyranny as well. We fear that with having such a big government it will lead to tyranny just by the example of Great Britain, and their system of government, which was a monarchy. politicalpartiesush.weebly.com, Political Parties, http://politicalpartiesush.weebly.com/ Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
The idea that wealthy business men would be favored under the constitution is mere speculation. According to article I sections two and three, there are no restrictions pertaining to the wealth of those who might run for a position in the house or those who are selected by the state government as senator. If the common folk choose not to run then it is their fault that they do not have representation in the government. To add to this point it is the duty of the people to vote for those who will fairly represent the needs of all who take up residence in their state. If the people chose to vote in a wealthy businessman who is unconcerned with the plight of the common folk then they must be willing to accept the consequences that come with it and choose more wisely during the following election. As for your desire to have power placed in the hands of the state government there is the matter of the senate. The state government is given the opportunity to choose two senators to represent them in the federal government. With that being said I would like to point out the fact that the legislative branch is made up of representatives for not only the state government, but for the people as a whole as well. This gives each state a good portion of representation in the central government and places a decent amount of power in their hands. If we rely on state and local government to run our nation we will be faced with the same dilemma that came with the Articles of Confederation. The people of the United States would not be united under one front. Instead their loyalties would lie with their states. This would leave more room for conflict and potential wars not only within our nation, but with foreign powers as well. If we are not functioning cohesively as one country then we are left vulnerable to the attack of other world powers who may seek to take our land and our resources. If this were to happen we would be left at square one, under the constraints of the tyrannical rule of another country. Under the Constitution the central government would be limited and our representatives would be given the right to impeach those who abused their power. Side: Federalists
1
point
What NotMyLocke was explaining was that one central government wouldn't be able to properly serve the individuals in a nation as large as the U.S. Thus the power be split up among the states so the citizens can be better served. Yes, it's true that Article I gives that states the power to regulate voter qualifications but in section 4 it also gives Congress the power to "to make or alter such state qualifications." And this is exactly what we as the Antifederalists are opposed to. Once a state makes a decision a politician on the hill shouldn't be able to change it. Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
There will be to much power in the hands of the government. Because of this the Anti-Federalist fought for the Bill of Rights. This would ensure that the people would not be so easily oppressed. The Bill of rights will limit the power of the government and safegaurd the liberties of the people. "The Great Debate."ConstitutionFacts.com. Oak Hill Publishing Company. pp. 1.Sept. 2017 Side: Anti-Federalists
You can say there is to much power in the government, however the legislative powers are controlled by the people the house of representatives is full of people chosen by the people and the house of rep. has the authority to call an impeachment on the president. The People also pick who the two senate members of there state are. The senate the trys the president if he is trying to be impeached. Also, the Constitution is a living document which means it was not a perfect draft and subject to change. Side: Federalists
1
point
Just the government will have more power doesn't mean that the people will be oppressed. Having a bill of rights would in fact protect some major rights that could be seized from the government; however, without a strong government, we would have nothing that could take the lead on ways to pay debts and help lead the people more smoothly. You will be protected as well as guided to a better economy and nation as a whole. Side: Federalists
1
point
The Constitution gave way too much power to the federal courts, and not enough to the state and local courts. The federal government was too big, or too far removed to help the average citizen. This nation is too big for the national government to represent people on a local basis. http://judiciallearningcenter.org/ Judicial Learning Center, "Ratifying the Constitution," http://judiciallearningcenter.org/, 2015, accessed Sep. 5th, 2017 Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
This is why we have representation based on population size. It's not an exact science, but having a direct democracy would be too impractical. Nothing would ever get done. The people elect those that they feel can get the things they want done. I believe there is no better way to represent each state more efficiently and fairly. Side: Federalists
An impracticality as it may be, "its not about the destination but the journey", and without a backing of all the people how are we to say that we all had a good journey with this "perfect" government? Without everyone's statement how are we to get the full picture? Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
I believe that this new Constitution should not be used in our government. This country is supposed to represent the people not the government, this document will give to much power to the government. We left Great Britain because we were getting taxed too much and now we are giving the government the opportunity to tax us. Side: Anti-Federalists
well ,my friend, it is important to for taxes to be in place, also, a government is needed to further keep Great Britain from taking our independence and liberty, and yes the government does have power, but it is divided, so not one person alone can call the shots. also the people will be represented, just not directly. Side: Federalists
1
point
With the divided power of accepting that form of government, we feel it would threaten and restrain our belief and the importance of having one. With the president having more power to veto laws and bills that can change decisions of the representatives in legislature, to the court system this government believes in, that appears to obtrude the state's local courts. Also within this government the new legislature will want to increase taxes, that could later lead on to oppression, if Congress passed them. This is not a way to represent people, and it will lead to tyranny, and we don't want our government going down the way Great Britain did, do we? We don't want a monarchy, we want everyone represented, and it won't happen if we accept this form of government. us history.org, "Antifederalists", Independence Hall Association, 2008, http://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp, accessed Wednesday, September 06, 2017 Side: Anti-Federalists
We the people do not agree to the terms of those who call themselves "federalist" for they have no intentions of keeping the thought of the people at heart or any factor of our best interests. And even if so that they do they are flawed in thinking that this Constitution will see that we have a fit and just government, that is with the people, for the people. Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
Well i am going to have to disagree with you about your statement because the Constitution is not just about about one state. It is about the whole overall government deciding what is best for the people so it is not just one state making a decision that could possibly affect the whole country. So it does have good intentions and our best interest. Side: Federalists
|
