The Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued whether or not to adopt the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists were in favor of it, while the Anti-Federalists were in opposition of the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists were fundamental to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they pointed out the problems in the Articles of Confederation and created a strong government with the U.S. Constitution. While the Anti-Federalists believed that the U.S. Constitution was too powerful.
The Federalists were fundamental to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they pointed out the problems in the Articles of Confederation. “Government under the Articles of Confederation could not enforce a treaty or a law when made nor impose any taxes for any purpose” (Alchin). The Articles of Confederation didn’t allow the government to enforce laws and treaties or have the power to tax. This was a problem because there was no executive branch to enforce the laws and treaties, so the states didn’t have to follow any rules and could do anything they …show more content…
The Anti-Federalists said that, “My object is to consider that undefined, unbounded and immense power…” ("The Anti-Federalist Papers (excerpts)"). The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution gave the Congress a limitless and an enormous amount of power. However, “A system of checks and balances was put into place so that no single branch would have too much authority.” (History.com Staff). Limited Government implemented programs such as checks and balances, which allowed branches of government to check, or limit, the other branches, so that the power is balanced between all of the branches. This way, one branch could not take over. Congress was controlled with the checks and balances system. Nonetheless, the U.S. Constitution limited the authority of the Federal government so that it would in turn not overtake the power of the