Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists essays

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists essays Before long, the Articles of Confederation proved to be insufficient in establishing law and order in early America. A Constitution was drafted, giving more power to the national government and setting up an intricate system to balance this power. Federalists, supporters of this constitution, debated with their opponent Anti-Federalists regarding whether or not to ratify the newly proposed system. Federalists advocated allowing the national government to pass laws and later judge their constitutionality. In order to accomplish this without the government getting too powerful, the proposed regime was broken into three branches, each keeping the other two in check. Under this system, the government would be able to create laws which apply to all the states. Individual states would still have the power to pass their own laws. Anti-Federalists responded to this with criticism. Richard Henry Lee stated that the checks and balance system would be too restricting on the different branches, resulting in progress being extremely difficult to impossible. Further, he conjectured that the people of all the states must be willing to come together and follow the same laws, which in his opinion is unlikely. Luther Martin argued that the constitution should be developed by the states, providing the example of the peaceful state-led compilation of the Articles of Confederation. Protecting the minority was a Federalist priority. In the proposed system, representative legislature would prevent smaller factions interests from being completely ignored. To Anti-Federalists the system seemed fundamentally flawed in that the legislature could be influenced by a few powerful men, changing power from the hands of the many to those of the few and thus ignoring most peoples interests. Lee stated that Federalists wanted to adopt the constitution only as a stepping stone to give themselves more power and influence. Further,...