Federalist
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist
When the constitution formed, two groups emerged, one as being the Federalist and the other as the anti- Federalist, each having two completely different views on the constitution. The Federalist supported the Constitution and believed that the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances would protect the Americans from tranny. Also felt that the power should be spread among 3 different branches, the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The anti- Federalist which opposed the Constitution, where against having a strong central government in fear of the government ignoring rights of majority, but the biggest problem was the constitution lacked any protection for individual rights.
I agree with the federalist, which supported the Constitution. This is because with the government split up into 3 branches there is no chance for one leader to emerge and have all power. For an example if the Executive Branch decided to pass a law it would have to be approved by all 3 branches for the law to be official. Another reason why I agree with the federalist is because they believed the Articles of Confederation were weak and ineffective and that is true because The Articles of Confederation did not give congress the power to enforce laws, pay taxes, or unify the states. Also, the Articles did allow congress to ask for money but never demand it. Now, congress could only pass a law if 9 states approved it and still had no power to enforce those laws on independent states overall the Articles of Confederation failed to unite the country as one, which led to all of the states doing their own thing and not listening to the government.
Some may say that the Anti-Federalist are actually right and we should have kept the Articles of Confederation because the Articles of Confederation is what kept the 13 colonies together through the Revolutionary War and the early years of the country. Also because the
When the constitution formed, two groups emerged, one as being the Federalist and the other as the anti- Federalist, each having two completely different views on the constitution. The Federalist supported the Constitution and believed that the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances would protect the Americans from tranny. Also felt that the power should be spread among 3 different branches, the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The anti- Federalist which opposed the Constitution, where against having a strong central government in fear of the government ignoring rights of majority, but the biggest problem was the constitution lacked any protection for individual rights.
I agree with the federalist, which supported the Constitution. This is because with the government split up into 3 branches there is no chance for one leader to emerge and have all power. For an example if the Executive Branch decided to pass a law it would have to be approved by all 3 branches for the law to be official. Another reason why I agree with the federalist is because they believed the Articles of Confederation were weak and ineffective and that is true because The Articles of Confederation did not give congress the power to enforce laws, pay taxes, or unify the states. Also, the Articles did allow congress to ask for money but never demand it. Now, congress could only pass a law if 9 states approved it and still had no power to enforce those laws on independent states overall the Articles of Confederation failed to unite the country as one, which led to all of the states doing their own thing and not listening to the government.
Some may say that the Anti-Federalist are actually right and we should have kept the Articles of Confederation because the Articles of Confederation is what kept the 13 colonies together through the Revolutionary War and the early years of the country. Also because the