The controversial argument among the federalists and anti-federalists was crucial for the constitution proper ratification. The anti-federalist’s goals were to prevent excess power in the central government and instead allow states to ultimately govern. Federalists promoted a larger national government for protection of the people, law enforcement and unification. The anti-federalists had the more sensible argument and plan highly supported freedom.
A crucial issue the federalists had was that their government would possibly allow the majority to infringe on the rights of the individuals. James Madison elaborated upon this in federalist papers and in which one he stated, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of a faction. If the views of the faction become the will of the majority of people, there is nothing to stop them from trampling on the rights of those who have different views. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” This evidently supported the anti-federalist argument in preventing people’s rights from being taken away by groups of special interests. Yet another issue with the federalists is that they didn’t want the states to have as much power which directly contradicts the articles of confederation. Hamilton explains it in the following, “All men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive … The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers.” Hamilton strongly supported a powerful executive branch to watch over the states opposed to allowing them sensible independence.
The anti-federalists basically were strong supporters of natural rights and therefore promoted the right to see a judge without being incarcerated. This and many other laws