Assignment 2: pp 93-96
Read pages 93-96 and answer the following questions: What were the Anti-federalists' main criticisms of the Constitution? Which of their criticisms do you agree with? Which do you disagree with? Why?
Assignment 2: pp 93-96
Forum
» Period 4 / Ratification Debates
» Assignment 2: pp 93-96
Summary:
Anti-federalists' views of the Constitution
The Anti-federalists main criticism was that that under the Constitution the national government held to much power that may result in the abuse of violating citizens rights. Also that in the Constitution there was nothing stated there to protect the rights of citizens like stated in the documents under state governments. I agree that the Constitution did leave out the interest of the people in the sense that it is suppose to represent the people and their idea of government. The Constitution does fail to place an accurate limits on the powers of the national government making its powers to vague and broad that they have have no pinpoint on the limits of the powers listed.
The Anti-federalists' believed that the U.S. was too big for one federal government to control it all. People would not be able to keep track of their representatives. Anti-federalist also believed that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives the congress too much power.
I agree with the congress having to much power is unfair because the people in power may start to abuse their power. I don't agree with the government not being able to control the entire U.S. because the reason they break the government up into different parts is so that they can manage.
1. Like Tanisha said the Anit -Federalist main criticism were that the national government held to much power. Some of the Anti- Federalist criticism that i agree with are:
- National government had to much power and their powers were unlimited.
- National courts have to much power that can destroy the judicial branch.
I agree that the national government had to much power that was unlimited. Because their powers were expanded it would make it easier for the peoples powers to be abused. I also agree that because the national courts had to much power it began to make the judicial branch unnecessary. Because the national courts power would have been supreme what ever the judicial branch wanted it would have been disregard. I do not disagree with any of the anti- federalist criticism.
The anti-federalist have some criticism in which they were concert about; because they not agree in the ratification of the constitution . The Anti federalists believed that the representation in the government will work better in small community, which the people will know each other and they will be able to make sacrifices to benefit the whole community. Second, they believed that the government has unlimited power, which give us to understand that the government has no limits. And as a third criticism the Anti- federalists believed that individual rights could be taken away from the citizens.
I agreed that the government representation will work better in small community, the reason that I say that is because it is more easy, to control a small part of the people instead of a large or diversity of people. I not agree that the government has unlimited power, because the Constitution state that the government has limits, so its mean that the government cannot do or stablish whatever they want. And the last point, I not agree that individuals rights can be taken away, because of the bill of rights which protect each citizens rights.
The Anti-Federalist had many reasons to justify their want for change in the constitution.
One of their reasons was that the National Government would be too far away from the people. I agree with this because there is NO WAY that the national government could have appealed to the people's complaints if they are too far away. The government's speed would be extremely slow.
Another one of their reasons was that there were no limits on the power of the national government. I would disagree with this because there were limits already included! They are listed in the constitution under the enumerated powers.
- The Anti-Federalist's main criticism of the Constitution was that the Constitution did not limit the power of the government, and in a sense was taking away the power of the people. They criticized that the Constitution did not give rights to the individuals and instead invested it's time in giving more power to the government then limits. They believed that the Constitution gave the government unlimited powers which would result in the goverment taking the powers from the people and the states.
- To an extent I agree that the Consitution has given the government unlimited powers, but I feel that the Constitution was created to set powers for the goverment so that everyone as a individual, but also as a group could benefit from it. From the experience of the British rule to the Articles of Confederation the founding fathers felt that this new document had to give power to the central goverment, but that in a way it can limit itself through the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch is there to protect the rights of the individuals and the common interest of all of us.
I share most, basically all, of the same views as the Anti-Federalists. When discussing the Constitution, they point out how the branches have a lot of powers, but close to no limits. Specifically pointing out the Congress' powers because them having so much power takes away from the power the state legislatures and people have. The national government and court have more power than they should have and it would be ultimately very easy for that power to be abused. I agree with all of the above, reason being because throughout the Constitution powers are given to each of the branches, but there are barely limits on the actual powers listed. The powers are too general, too many opportunites are given for the government to imply more powers, and that jeopardizes the power of the people. I don't necessarily disagree with any of the values and views they have because all of the views listed were based off of their concern for the people. The Anti-Federalists saw flaws in the Constitution due to the power that was being taken away from the people and did something about it.
- The Anti-Federalist had many criticism of the constitution however their main criticism was, they complained of the insufficient limits to the powers of the national government, and also having the fear that the individual rights were to be taken away and not protected.
- With the two main points that I stated I disagree with the Anti-Federalist because the founders created many systems where each branch of the government can limit themselves if it was found unconstitutional. Also because the people had the bill of rights that clearly states their individual rights.
- However, in other criticisms that the Anti-Federalist argued I do agree to the fact that having communities more diverse and far from the actual government makes it harder for the government to know the actual concerns each individual had. Meaning that the government would tend to create policies believing its for the benefit of the whole, yet they didn't quiet know because no one had any close and daily interactions to the common people to state what are their satisfactory needs.
1. The Anti Federalist believed that the National government would have too much power under the constitution and did not have enough limits to compensate for its powers. and alot of those powers were very vague, so they thought that would lead to an abuse of power.
2. I agreed that the "necessary and proper" gave the National Government too much power and that without the Bill of rights, people would not have any power against the federal government.
/forum/t-277786/assignment-2:pp-93-96#post-
