The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists warned that without a Bill of Rights, a strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution. They had great apprehension about the potential loss of sovereignty through the power given to the national government in the proposed Constitution and the resulting horrific effects that such a loss would have on the nation and the people as a whole. The Anti-Federalist belief was that through the integrity of state sovereignty, effective restraints would be in place to keep the national government from deteriorating into a despotic government thus protecting the liberties and freedoms of the people. Anti-Federalist felt that the Constitution gave more power to central government and less to the states.
Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
Government is a reflection on human nature because you have to depend on people and government is after all made of men. The purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. The Founders believed in the Constitution more than the Progressives. The Founders viewed the Constitution as the answer to everything, while the Progressives did not. They leaned toward other things to create government.
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
But one thing they have in common is that they both want people to do good, and do the right thing. Confucianism believes that human nature is naturally good, while legalism believes that it isn’t. Governments are pretty much the basis to every society. Again we see the conflicting beliefs of these two teachings. Legalists believe that people have to conform, or adapt, to the law.
However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties. Before Hamilton's plan, America was having financial problems. There were war debts that were unpaid and individual states and even Congress issued worthless paper money. Hamilton created a plan that would first pay down the national debt and then assume the debt of the states. This was called the Assumption Plan.
Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor. When he became president, his view changed. He supported a more loose view of the document in accordance with his policies. In order for the Constitution to be understood, the chaos around the time it was written must be first understood. Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays.
After assessing both attitudes towards the republic, I believe that Hobbes government was the most suitable because it is the most effective in the preservation of human life, which is essentially the purpose of a government. However, before going further, the details of Hobbes and Machiavelli’s corresponding notions on republicanism, one must first outline what this form of government really is. In essence, republicanism is following the principles of a republican governing system. Thus, a republic is the concept of the people taking control of the government system. In contrast to a monarchy or hereditary rule, a republic system bases the majority of their decisions on laws.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
The Greatest Debate of American history concerns the mysterious, and least understood branch of the United States government: The Supreme Court. The differences between those who favor activism and those who favor restraint are all apart of the biggest riff in our justice system since the beginning of the nation. Conservatives, or those who favor Judicial Restraint, believe the original intent of the founding fathers is (written in stone and it is not our responsibility to change such a great document) suitable for all generations, past, present, and future. These people believe that they have the power to interpret the founding fathers, so they have the power to manipulate the law, and power such as that should only rest in the hands of the executive and legislative branches. On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation.