Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
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 this class.
Federalists
Side Score: 31
|
 |
Anti-Federalists
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
In support of Federalism: The position taken by the Anti-Federalists ignores key historical trends in concerns to democracy. Unchecked democracy leads to mob rule, which inevitably crushes the rights of the minority. The civic virtue of citizens alone fails to prevent a larger groups who show more concern to furthering their own welfare rather than the common welfare. A larger, strongly centralized government organized by a system of checks and balances will better protect the rights of all individuals. Power divided between the national government and state governments provide a safeguard against any one force or group from commandeering the government to further their wishes while violating the rights of other citizens. The government proposed by the Constitution will not become a tyranny because the set of checks and balances create a separation of powers between each branch of government. Meaning, no one branch of government will have more power than another. True, the national government receives more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation; however, the new powers of the national government limit its role to overseeing trade, currency, and defense. These three areas benefit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare war, not the executive branch. Lastly, including a bill of rights in the Constitution is entirely unnecessary. Listing a bill of rights on the Constitution gives citizens the impression that they are to only expect protection of the rights specifically listed on the Constitution rather than a broader spectrum of rights implied by the Constitution. Side: Federalists
The government proposed by the Constitution will not become a tyranny because the set of checks and balances create a separation of powers between each branch of government. Meaning, no one branch of government will have more power than another. True, the national government receives more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation; however, the new powers of the national government limit its role to overseeing trade, currency, and defense. These three areas benefit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. Side: Federalists
1
point
In support of Federalism: The position taken by the Anti-Federalists ignores key historical trends in concerns to democracy. Unchecked democracy leads to mob rule, which inevitably crushes the rights of the minority. The civic virtue of citizens alone fails to prevent a larger groups who show more concern to furthering their own welfare rather than the common welfare. A larger, strongly centralized government organized by a system of checks and balances will better protect the rights of all individuals. Power divided between the national government and state governments provide a safeguard against any one force or group from commandeering the government to further their wishes while violating the rights of other citizens. Side: Federalists
to overseeing trade, currency, and defense. These three areas benefit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare Side: Federalists
1
point
fit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare war, not the executive branch. Lastly, including a bill of rights in the Constitution is entirely unnecessary. Listing a bill of rig Side: Federalists
The government proposed by the Constitution will not become a tyranny because the set of checks and balances create a separation of powers between each branch of government. Meaning, no one branch of government will have more power than another. True, the national government receives more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation; however, the new powers of the national government limit its role to overseeing trade, currency, and defense. These three areas benefit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. Side: Federalists
The position taken by the Anti-Federalists ignores key historical trends in concerns to democracy. Unchecked democracy leads to mob rule, which inevitably crushes the rights of the minority. The civic virtue of citizens alone fails to prevent a larger groups who show more concern to furthering their own welfare rather than the common welfare. A larger, strongly centralized government organized by a system of checks and balances will better protect the rights of all individuals. Power divided between the national government and state governments provide a safeguard against any one force Side: Federalists
Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule!Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Federalists rule! Side: Federalists
Good point. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare war, not the executive branch. Lastly, including a bill of rights in the Constitution is entirely unnecessary. Listing a bill of rights on the Constitution gives citizens the impression that they are to only expect protection of the rights specifically listed on the Constitution rather than a broader spectrum of rights implied by the Constitution. Side: Federalists
|
5
points
In support of Anti-Federalism: The Federalists make a crucial mistake in arguing for the eradication of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a Constitution. Creating a stronger, more centralized government only serves the interests of a selected few, while disregarding the rights of the majority. No republic ever existed in the same amount of territory as the United States. Within the vast dominion of the United States, there lies a diverse set of beliefs and practices that vary from state to state; therefore, stronger state governments will better represent the interests of its citizens, for citizens within the same state tend to share the same values and cultural practices. Sharing an identity protects individual rights more fairly and equally than a distant government on a national scale. Democracy requires active participation in the government. The government proposed under the Constitution insists on a distant capital where each states’ representatives must relocate for government processes. Anti-Federalists question how citizens can participate in their government if their elected representatives leave their home state. This leads to a great danger that the state representatives will be influenced more by the president rather than their constituents. Herein lies the greatest threats to liberty under the laws of the Constitution: The Constitution gives the national government too much power at the expense of state governments. The Constitution’s supremacy clause overrules any and all state laws, which essentially renders any rights guaranteed to citizens under their local state governments null and void. Furthermore the Constitution lacks a bill of rights, leaving the necessary and proper clause too vague, which gives the national government unlimited powers. The government should clearly define what it can or cannot do to prevent an aristocratic ruling of a wealthy few. Lastly, the Constitution gives the government the rights to collect taxes and create a standing army. Given the other clause in the Constitution which strengthens the executive branch, this creates the possibility of the executive branch using the army to establish a monarchy or any other form of despotism, leaving us in a condition no different than British rule. Side: Anti-Federalists
emocracy requires active participation in the government. The government proposed under the Constitution insists on a distant capital where each states’ representatives must relocate for government processes. Anti-Federalists question how citizens can participate in their government if their elected representatives leave their home state. This leads to a great danger that the state representatives will be influenced more by the president rather than their constituents. Side: Anti-Federalists
2
points
fit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare war, not the executive branch. Lastly, including a bill of rights in the Constitution is entirely unnecessary. Listing a bill of rig Side: Anti-Federalists
Herein lies the greatest threats to liberty under the laws of the Constitution: The Constitution gives the national government too much power at the expense of state governments. The Constitution’s supremacy clause overrules any and all state laws, which essentially renders any rights guaranteed to citizens under their local state governments null and void. Furthermore the Constitution lacks a bill of rights, leaving the necessary and proper clause too vague, which gives the national government unlimited powers. Side: Anti-Federalists
checks and balances create a separation of powers between each branch of government. Meaning, no one branch of government will have more power than another. True, the national government receives more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation; however, the new powers of the national government limit its role to overseeing trade, currency, and defense. These three areas benefit from stronger national governments and-in return- will benefit the local state governments as well. To reiterate the point of checks and balances, the people should not fear the extended powers of the executive branch. Both the Congress and Supreme Court check the powers of the executive branch to prevent a rise of monarchy. While the executive branch remains commander-in-chief of the army, the safeguards provided by the separation of powers give Congress the right to declare war, not the executive branch. Lastly, including a bill of rights in the Constitution is entirely unnecessary. Listing a bill of rights on the Constitution gives citizens the impression that they Side: Federalists
0
points
s a diverse set of beliefs and practices that vary from state to state; therefore, stronger state governments will better represent the interests of its citizens, for citizens within the same state tend to share the same values and cultural practices. Sharing an identity protects individual rights more fairly and equally than a distant government on a national scale. Democracy requires active participation in the government. The government proposed under the Constitution insists on a distant capital where each states’ representatives must relocate for government processes. Anti-Federalists question how citizens can participate in their government if their elected representatives leave their home state. This leads to a great danger that the state representatives will be influenced more by the president rather than their constituents. Herein lies the greatest threats to liberty under the laws of the Constitution: The Constitution gives the national government too much power at the expense of state governments. The Constitution’s supremacy clause overrules any and all state laws, which essentially renders any rights guaranteed to citizens under their local state governments null and void. Furthermore the Constitution lacks a bill of rights, leaving the necessary and pr Side: Federalists
Anti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stinkAnti-Federalists stink Side: Anti-Federalists
Democracy requires active participation in the government. The government proposed under the Constitution insists on a distant capital where each states’ representatives must relocate for government processes. Anti-Federalists question how citizens can participate in their government if their elected representatives leave their home state. This leads to a great danger that the state representatives will be influenced more by the president rather than their constituents. Side: Anti-Federalists
|
