How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out? What went on with the Articles of Confederation? Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. 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.
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.
Federalists, on the other hand, believed in broadly adhering to constitution, characterizing them as broad constructionists. This allowed the Federalists to make decisions that were not clearly supported by the constitution, ultimately giving the government more power than the constitution. While the Federalists and Republicans were thought as very diverse parties, their beliefs ended up crossing during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. Therefore, from 1801 to 1817 while the Federalists were considered to be broad constructionists and Republicans strict constructionists, they both went astray from their beliefs so each party could do what was best for themselves and, most importantly, the country. From 1801 to 1809, during the presidency of Jefferson, it was the first time that the Republicans and Federalists didn't abide by the ordinary ideals each group previously followed.
Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the authority of the federal government was based on a strict constitution. The Federalists believed in the opposite. Federalists believed that the constitution should be interpreted in a loose and broader way. The Federalists were able to make decisions that were not written word for word in the constitution. Jefferson states his disagreements with James Madison when he says, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.” (Document A).
The Federalist 51 was an article created in 1788 by, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, stating that in order to have a more proper government structure the use of checks and balances is much needed. He starts off by saying each branch, legislative, executive, and judicial must be independent but all three should share the equal amount of power. The reason the three branch’s should have equal power is because it will only avoid the possibilities of democracy collapsing. He even states, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” This means that since each government will want to seek more power they will have to compete with each other like tug of war. However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government.
At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible. After the ratification of the Articles of Confederation the states pretty much governed themselves, they regulated their own interstate trade, they raised their own militia, and the Sovereignty resided in the
Jamie Corbin THE THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN FEDERALIST #10 In Federalist #10, Madison notes that in a republican government the legislative authority will predominate out of necessity and therefore questions how to keep that branch from exceeding the powers that are rightfully theirs. Madison lists multiple remedies that the Constitution has, including the federal system of government, two chambers or houses (bicameral legistature) of Congress, and the executive veto. Madison’s famous essay on the subject of factions, he addresses the question of how “to secure the public good and private rights oagainst the danger of [majority faction], and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government.” Not only is judicial review never listed as a possible solution in Federalist #10, but when Madison switches back to the subject of factions in the last of of 51, he lists a cure that he never mentioned in the famous Federalist #10: “creating a will in the community independent of the majority.” The court is immune to majoritarian pressures and is therefore in a position to counteract majority faction. Madison did not
He, and the framers of the constitution, believed that in a confederal system that the states may have more power. If the state has more power than larger majority factions can form within the state and possibly take over the minority. (Mellon) With the representative/republic government, the states do not have more power and can less likely oppress the rights of their citizens. Another way power is put under control through checks and
Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties.
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