Fderalist vs Anti-Federalist

543 Words3 Pages
Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists HIS/110CA University of Phoenix 07/31/2014 Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists During the state conventions that considered whether to adopt the Constitution that had been written in the Philadelphia Convention, Federalists were for the adoption of the Constitution while Anti-federalists were some of them against adopting it and other for adopting it only if it was first amended. Federalists wanted a strong central government that would rule the people of the United States directly and not through the state governments. Anti-federalists wanted a weak central government that would serve the governments of the states by performing those functions of government that could be better preformed by one authority than by 13 different authorities, such as defense and diplomacy. Other functions of government would be performed by the states, not by the federal government. Federalist were for a system of strong federal courts while Anti-federalists were for limits on the federal courts. For example, Anti-federalists were opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court having original jurisdiction to hear suits between a state and a citizen of another state. This power and other powers given to the U.S. courts would result in the destruction of both the judicial function and the legislative function of the state governments. Federalists were for this original jurisdiction and for the U.S. courts having the power of review and veto over the enactments of the state legislatures and the decisions of the state courts. The Federalists were for the federal government having the power to raise taxes directly from the people. They said that without this power, the U.S. could not have an effective defense or an effective
Open Document