...To Ratify or Nor? That is a question being asked over the centuries, and the answers have been the cause of serious controversies. Just like the founding fathers debated what was best for the country, by ratifying a Constutution. Today people still debate whether it was right or not to ratify the Constitution. What do you think? Today people have been able to see the benefits of having a constitution and it was proved many years ago when the Articles of Confederation did not work that a stronger central power was the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty...
Words: 639 - Pages: 3
...Federalism In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches Anti-Federalist and Federalist The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalist also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper...
Words: 458 - Pages: 2
...The federalist structure of government is the one that is best for this nation. Federalists wanted to make a change; a change for the people. They want an established government that is ruled or governed by the people, unlike the Anti-Federalists who wanted to keep the same monarchy government and didn’t seek a change for the people. A monarchy has proven to be corrupt because only the higher-class had the right to power and the lower-class had no say. For this reason, the Federalists wanted to separate the powers of the government into their own branches in order to avoid a corrupt government. Because of this, Federalism would be the best option for this country. Federalists strongly desired a government for the people. They also wanted the constitution to be ratified as quickly as possible with the use of editing. Federalists also believed that some power should be taken out of the states and put into the government, and that the government should be respectfully separated into three branches. Federalist paper no. 39 states: “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of the republicans and claim for their governments the honorable title of republic.” By separating the government into different branches, the Federalists has the idea that...
Words: 615 - Pages: 3
...2.03 When choosing your position to be Federalist or Antifederalist, the best choice would be a Federalist. In being a Federalist, they agree on having a strong central government, under the Constitution. Unlike the anti-federalist how don’t agree with that. Anti- Federalists “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety. “ Federalist "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." These 2 quotes have the idea of security and safety. Being a federalist and under the Constitution, it is like choosing the stronger more central government. Which therefore will be the one to protect more efficiently. The anti-federalists where mostly farmer and workers when the federalists is everyone how is much bigger than them. They believed the Constitution made the nation too strong and took too much control over the individual states. Being strong is a good thing. We need control because without control there will be chaos. We wouldn’t be living the life were living right now without this protection and control. I disagree with the anti-federalist because I’m all about having a strong nation. I feel...
Words: 293 - Pages: 2
...2.03 The Antifederalist Assessment So I have chosen to use Federalists because our government is strong and it is beneficial to our country, the federalists wanted a change in the government, while the Anti-Federalists wanted a monarchy. The Anti-Federalists way would have led our country to corruption. The federalists covered the worries of the people and the corruption of the government while adding in people opinions. Anti-Federalists refer to a coalition of people that opposed the creation of the Constitution that would lead to a stronger U.S. federal government. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States would be because of the governments growing power. The previous constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, gave the states more authority. “Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.“ The group of supporters that wanted to put the Constitution into place were known as the Federalists, they got their name from the term “federalism” which implies a strong central government. Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules in which the power to govern is shared between the state and national governments, creating a federation...
Words: 297 - Pages: 2
...Hannah Carr United States Government March 18, 2015 Horton 2.03 The Antifederalist Assessment So I have chosen to use Federalists because our government is strong and it is beneficial to our country, the federalists wanted a change in the government, while the Anti-Federalists wanted a monarchy. The Anti-Federalists way would have led our country to corruption. The federalists covered the worries of the people and the corruption of the government while adding in people opinions. Anti-Federalists refer to a coalition of people that opposed the creation of the Constitution that would lead to a stronger U.S. federal government. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States would be because of the governments growing power. The previous constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, gave the states more authority. “Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.“ The group of supporters that wanted to put the Constitution into place were known as the Federalists, they got their name from the term “federalism” which implies a strong central government. Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules in which the power to govern is shared between...
Words: 306 - Pages: 2
...2.03 The Anti-federalists My position as a federalist is to ratificate the constitution while also creating a strong central government by separation of both of the powers combined. All the federalists were always strong believers in the constitution, believing that this ratification was the only way they were all able to achieve a fair society where all people can all have their rights to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, while also wanting to help shape future analysis of the Constitution for the better and in beneficial ways. By them being able to build a sufficient government with the foundation of the basis of popular sovereignty, without the need of sacrificing any sovereignty of the varied states fairness of the new government, it can be secured and work as it should. The rich would be happy in this case, because they would feel like the new Constitution was benefcial on their part, because the fact that rich's votes would earn much more value than the less fortunate in the states like what they wanted to achieve. They can possibly keep the potential of tyranny from becoming something dangerous to their people and they know that safeguards they have with the government will keep it from overpowering. The constitution should be ratified as a Federalist because the nation might of never survived without the constitution by their side leading them and a stronger government was necessary at this very point in desperate time. The federalists explained...
Words: 875 - Pages: 4
...RETHINKING THE EAST ASIAN MIRACLE JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND SHAHID YUSUF Editors RETHINKING THE EAST ASIA MIRACLE JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND SHAHID YUSUF Editors A copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press i Oxford University Press Oxford • New York • Athens • Auckland • Bangkok • Bogotá • Buenos Aires • Calcutta • Cape Town • Chennai • Dar es Salaam • Delhi • Florence • Hong Kong • Istanbul • Karachi • Kuala Lumpur • Madrid • Melbourne • Mexico City • Mumbai • Nairobi • Paris • São Paulo • Singapore • Taipei • Tokyo • Toronto • Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin • Ibadan © 2001 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, USA Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Cover design and interior design by Naylor Design, Washington, D.C. Manufactured in the United States of America First printing June 2001 1 2 3 4 04 03 02 01 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this study are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations...
Words: 190305 - Pages: 762
