Question

1. Assess the arguments made by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists when it came to the Constitution. What were the key points of each argument? And, of the two, which side do you think had the more compelling argument, and why?

Answer 1

• The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a seamless one, and fixing the problems of the Articles of Confederation required a series of lengthy debates both during and after the convention. But one thing was certain, something had to be changed.
• The Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were:
• Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size
• Congress didn't have the power to tax, or to regulate foreign and interstate commerce
• There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress
• There was no national court system
• Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote
• Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress
• These weaknesses introduced a great deal of interstate conflict, something that delegates, through the drafting of the Constitution, tried their best to solve.
• There were two sides to the Great Debate: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists did not. One of the major issues these two parties debated concerned the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
• The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.
• Federalists’ beliefs could be better described as nationalist. The Federalists were instrumental in 1787 in shaping the new US Constitution, which strengthened the national government at the expense, according to the Antifederalists, of the states and the people.
• The Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, but they never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and so had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a bill of rights to ensure the liberties that the Antifederalists felt the Constitution violated.
• Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments.
• Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen. Anti-Federalists feared the nation was too large for the national government to respond to the concerns of people on a state and local basis.
• The Anti-Federalists were also worried that the original text of the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights. They wanted guaranteed protection for certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.
• A Bill of Rights was added in 1791. In part to gain the support of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights if the Anti-Federalists would vote for the Constitution.
• Federalists believed that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution, and that a stronger national government was necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation.
• The Federalists met Anti-Federalist arguments that the new government created by the Constitution was too powerful by explaining that the document had many built-in safeguards, such as:
• Limited Government: Federalists argued that the national government only had the powers specifically granted to it under the Constitution, and was prohibited from doing some things at all.
• Separation of Powers: Federalists argued that, by separating the basic powers of government into three equal branches and not giving too much power to any one person or group, the Constitution provided balance and prevented the potential for tyranny.
• Checks and Balances: Federalists argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, where each of the three branches is able to check or limit the other branches.
• In my opinion,The Anti-Federalists (later the Democratic-Republicans) had a point when they expressed fears that the reforms embodied into the constitution risked conversion of the confederation that had been established under the Articles into an increasingly unitary national government.Without the Anti-federalists the Constitution would not have been as good or as enduring as it is.