Society is everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish. Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own mistakes. Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best. The government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, but the people will prefer to be responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. The British system is too complex and harmful, and that the monarchy is granted far too much power.
Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
Congress men always think twice about the fact of losses of their States and their Civilians. Therefore the Congress now desired to build up upon nothing that would invent their opponent. The main concept behind all of these was nothing but to create a strong centralized government which is having more decentralized in authority and power. Congress felt establishing a weak national government will win the approval that time simply because it didn’t threaten or didn’t change the basic concepts of the exciting British laws among the States. Somehow they knew the limitation on the powers of Congress will be became more obvious once they change the method.
Paine explains the British had too much power and with power comes corruption. The monarchy itself is a complex government and rifled with nepotism. Paine alledges there wasn’t a checks and balance system in place to maintain fair ruling without risking retaliation. “To say the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally, checking each other is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.” A government
Sandel suggest discarding the whole culture of hiding moral convictions from debate because it is unnatural. This suggestion seems to be heading along the right path to creating a more reflective democracy. He is essentially asking for a “free market place of ideas” to ensue and that people will be swayed by truth and conviction. Sandel is very invested in discussing the purpose, the core of things and this leading us to a better form of democratic debate. It is a very ideal way of government and would require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the citizens and it would most likely cause slow progress.
In this essay, I will briefly describe the differences between the two parties and argue as to why I would be a Federalist back in 1787. The Anti-Federalists believed that when the elite rule, their power hunger would make them become greedy and selfish. However, government itself is for the common good, as John Adams stated in his 1776 Thoughts on Government- “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” This is why Anti-Federalists created the Bill of Rights- to protect the individual rights of the people from the reach of the government. Even though I would side with the Federalists, I feel just as they did, that the Bill of Rights is very important to protecting the citizen’s rights and liberties and that is why they accepted it in the compromise. The Anti-Federalists believed that a representative of the people does not need to filter out any of the people’s requests.
He holds power as a man of great intelligence and a devious nature, but his plans to destroy the government’s power are not to do it himself, but to empower the people of England to do it for themselves. Showing that the power was always in the people to remove their oppressors, had they just had the right push. Although this could of happened without V’s plotting, it is fair to say that the people of England, with the oppressed state they live in, would not of acted upon this “power in numbers” they possessed, a notion that the government had relied upon to keep their power. In contrast, we are never introduced to the way in which the government gained the power it holds over the people, but it is maintained through the people’s submissiveness and there willingness to simply go along with whatever the government tells them to do. This is shown in Exam Day by the dialogue, the parents of the boy seem semi-distraught yet they do nothing to stop it.
He also desired equality and justice for all regardless of their religious or political affiliation but not through a government that had complete control over its people like an aristocrat would over “commoners.” Equality and protection of all citizens should be granted and protected by the government of America; a government elected by the people and for the people. Both men desired the government to have the common interest of the people at its cores, but had different ways of achieving it. Unlike Washington, who favored a centralized government, Jefferson opposed it. This created a conflict because Jefferson feared that the ideology of republicanism was threatened with a centralized and powerful government proposed by Washington as well as the supposed monarchical tendencies of Hamilton and the
The long standing debate on whether amending the constitution to allow Naturalized citizens to run for presidency has formed arguments for and against the issue; all arguments stand with valid points. But as a democracy as the United States is, the government must consider the equal treatment of all its citizens including those naturalized. Loyalty to this country does not fall in place according to the country a person was born but by the values they were raised in. Not everyone has a realistic prospective of running for president whatever their background may be; but excluding certain citizens from consideration merely based on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. Kennedy states in his article “It makes second-class citizens of naturalized
Faction, a problem could not avoid in American society because of the vast different opinions. In favor of republican, James Madison emphasized that the strong Constitution has the control to deal with violence and aggression caused by faction which those in favor of democracy could not because of its instability government. Furthermore, in the federalist no.51 he stated that the Constitution’s separation of power also helps mitigate the problem of factionalism. Believing in pluralist theory that power is relatively broadly distributed among many more or less organized interest groups in society, and the fear of majoritarian rule, James Madison one more time convinced that the Constitution will mitigate the problem of factionalism by diving