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 that a different stronger government was needed for a variety of reasons, but especially if the U.S was able to act correctly in foreign affairs, trieing to convince everyone that because of the separation of the combined powers in the central government, there was slight chances of the national government expanding into a tyrannical power. Instead of growing massive in strength, the separate branches designed to work together would provide a "check and balance" against each other so that neither of them could rise to outright dominance which would make the government go into failure. They convinced that all rejecting would do for the Constitution is cause anarchy and wars between each and every one of the states and they want to do something for the better so they can help resolve the problem. Both Hamilton and Madison had a few arguments about how the Constitution didn't need a Bill of Rights, because of it creating a "parchment barrier" that would limit the rights of the people, as against protecting them. However, in some time, they both made a final decision to announce a will to take the matter in their own hands, taking the series of amendments to create the Bill of rights as a first priority for the people as they promised. That was the only reason why it was been ratified in the first place. Even though it would be a lot to go through with, it would be greatly worth it for them to ratify it for their people and give the world a better government more suitable for them, especially after the failing of the Article of Confederation. By enough support on our side, and making sure the power wouldn’t corrupt the government, it would go fine and it would only help. The protection is the key to keep everyone happy and peaceful.

As a Federalist, the reason why I disagree with the Anti-federalist side is because the types of people that supported that position as Anti-Federalists were the type who wanted liberty, freedom and uncruelty. While we support the Federalists who want to be safe from mobs, unlike Anti-federalists that didn’t want that same thing. Because of the federalists behaviors they would always have the highest priority of having more rights then them. I didn’t like that they were against the ratification because that ratification would give the country an attempt at unifying the states in a national political arrangement, unlike the Anti-Federalists believing that every state should have a sovereign type of independent government but it isn’t that easy to do that, because without control how would there be any order in the way the government would work? It would just be disorganized and eventually go back to the way it started decades ago. The Anti-federalist were known to be disorganized while Federalists would always knew how to keep themselves all well organized. Federalist Alexander Hamilton even thought that the wealthy class was less wicked and sinful than the poor people because the more poor ones were more prone to commit a variety of crimes which the government didnt want and wanted to see more educated people rather than individuals that aren’t as highly educated, and the anti-federalists are just too scared to open up to a new government when they don’t know that it would actually benefit us all, unlike their opinion on it. Mr. Smith didn't like the idea of the constitution whatsoever, believing that each and everyone should have an equal opportunity in becoming any representative, but the constitution didn't see it that way and said that “Only the rich people should have that right of way as the leaders."and the rich will end up controlling the government.