There were plenty of arguments over what to add or take out so some delegates came up with the idea to abandon the Articles of Confederation and establish a new constitution. I was completely for this new constitution because it would secure our government and people. Many others were against this new idea because it was not fair to the people and could cause a monarchy. Although this is true, the people have more of a say in this new government because they vote to choose our representatives and they can vote to change the representatives or
He knew that by resigning his command he would prove that the ideals of the Revolutionary War were real, not mere excuses to avoid paying taxes. Many Americans were equally devoted to liberty and law and would have done the same thing in Washington's place. But, fortunately, Washington combined that devotion with ambition and ability to lead America through eight years of war, facing a skeptical Congress and a frustrated army. Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities.
Meanwhile, Anti-Federalist believed power should remain with the states. As you can see the Anti-Federalist was against the constitution. “New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and Despotism“. The main reason they revoked the constitution is bad is because it divided the powers amount the government in 3 branches (Judicial, Legislation, Executive), so NO ONE had supreme power over. Anti-Federalist didn’t approved they wanted a bill of right instead.
He stood for a strong federal government because he strongly struggled with giving states too much power, thinking they would start a rebellion in which could not be controlled. However, he knew the people had to given some say in things, and therefore had to consider the role of the government. He wanted the government to have
What were the major arguments that surfaced in opposition to the new Constitution proposed in 1787? How did supporters of the Constitution counter those arguments? Before the Constitution was proposed in 1787, under the Articles of Confederation, there was no control of the country; debt was piling up and there was no enforcement of taxes. Many arguments surfaced in opposition to the new Constitution, but the main concern had to do with the concept of a “president” where there was a single executive leader and centralized government, and that there was no bill of rights. Supporters of the constitution countered these arguments by adding some safeguards in some cases and also by thoroughly explaining the limited powers that the leader and government would have and the necessity for a strong central government.
If I had to choose a type of government, I would support the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, there was no bill of rights, the national government could maintain an army in peacetime, Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power and the executive branch held too much power. The Antifederalists, were generally farmers, debtors, and other lower class people who were loyal to their state governments. Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof.
Branches of Government Jefferson said it best, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government” (The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., 1996-2012, para. 1). After the ultimate control while under rule of the crown, the founding fathers sought to create not only a government that provided for rights and liberties of the people, but also to ensure that government interaction and authority was spread amongst various branches. This distribution of power would provide checks and balances to guarantee reduced influence, while allowing each section to operate independently. However, agreement of each party would be problematic to achieve when needing to enact new laws and regulations.
Brutus says in his essay that this power given to the federal government will take away all of the state government’s power to collect taxes and that the constitutions and treaties of the states will become null. Hamilton denies this by explaining that the structure of the proposed federal government will preserve the state constitutions. What Hamilton says about this seems to go against Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that the law of the Constitution will be supreme over the states. Brutus’ Essay V seems to say the same thing over and over again. Many of the things that he lists as problems to the nation are things that we love about our government today.
The main weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation are that it legislated for states but not for individuals. Congress had no power to tax or regulate trade. It lacked power to control commerce. And it was too difficult to change any of the articles. Then the Constitution was put into place 1787 to overthrow the Articles of Confederation.
Usually larger groups are not likely to try to take in so much power as compared to individuals and possibly small groups. Now in this century, Congress has the opposite problem. Congress is not misusing power but rather failing to do the duties that it is responsible for, which accordingly is treason to the Constitution (U.S.A constitution.) The Judicial branch even though overseas other branches of government, no one overseas them which means there are self regulatory therefore, can police themselves. This has made the Supreme Court of the United State to bypass the check and balance system.