We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes.
Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function. This way no one branch has too much authority. This also increased the protection and preservation of mankind’s private property. In conclusion Locke's work he explains that the concepts of government power cannot possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. He also states that it was the joint power of every member of the society.
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
With the foundation of a federal government, that government can regulate and maintain both domestic and international trade without individual state interference, therefore making the United States one of the most important trading countries in the western world. This is only one possible explanation, another might be that they honestly did purely want to build a government for the people of the United States and by the people, which is supported by Paul Johnson’s writings. Other debates between intentions lie behind the injection of United States into the Vietnam conflict. Some historians say that the reason for our entrance into the conflict was to protect democracy and stop the spread of communism. Others say that the U.S. involvement wasn’t to protect democracy but to protect our economic interests in the nearby South Pacific and Middle East.
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
But, pure democracy, where everyone weighs in on every issue, becomes impractical as societies become larger, more complex, and replete with issues. Therefore, a representative republic is a logical alternative for a functional government, in a society that assumes that all men are created equal. Jonathan Boucher, an Anglican minister opposed to the American Revolution[i], stated that a government formed by the
Federalist vs. anti- federalist Federalists liked having a strong central government--the kind with the president and congress and the Supreme Court. Anti-Federalists, however, wanted strong state governments--they wanted more laws to be made by state governors and state senators. 8. A federal system of government Federalists favored a strong central government as opposed to the anti federalists who favored a weaker central government. Federalists wished the US constitution to pass as it was before the amendments and the bill of rights.
"Title: The Federalist No. 10 Author: James Madison Time: November 22, 1787 Short Summary:. The Articles of Confederation did not effectively control and reduce the negative effects of factions on the nation, and thus a new government was necessary. The government laid out in the Constitution was ideal because it was a republic, a representative government that would prevent self-interested passions from holding too much sway over the government. It was also large, containing representatives from every state and many different interest groups, making it difficult for one group to dominate and suppress the others.