Assignment 4: pp 100-101
What were the Federalists' three central arguments? Which of the Federalists' arguments do you agree with? Which do you disagree with? Why?
Assignment 4: pp 100-101
Forum
» Period 4 / Ratification Debates
» Assignment 4: pp 100-101
Summary:
Federalists' arguments
The three central arguments that the Federalists present to us are:
• The civic virtue can not be the only source of support for a government in order to promote the welfare and to protect the people’s rights.
• The best way to promote the goals of republicanism is by the form that the Constitution organize the government, which include the separation of powers( the power between the three branches was separate), and the checks and balance( the three branches has the authority or power to check each other to make sure that no one abuse of its power)
• The government will able to protect basic rights by the representation of different interests.
- The legislative branch
- The executive branch
- The Judicial branch.
I agree on the second argument that the Federalist has made. I agree because the separation of power and the checks and balance makes a good organization of the government for the reason that no one can abuse of its power and its all in balance so the branches have the opportunity to check each other. I also agree on the third argument because that shows the three branches and let us know about the interest of each one and what they care about. I not agree with the first argument that the Federalist has made because the civic virtue is something that support the government on protecting people’s rights because I believed that if the government knows what it is right from wrong will be able to protect people’s rights and also their welfare.
Elida has simply laid out the three centeral arguments so instead of re-writting them i will add on to what she has written. The federalist belive that civic virtue has been interperted to be a crutch for the people know because they rely on ther gevernment to support their personal benefits and welfare. Also arguing that in a large republic civic virtue would have no place because people live far apart from each other and it would be foolish for the people to sacrafice self-interest for someone who is miles away fromm them.
The second argument was that the Constitutuions organization of checks and balances and the seperations of power is solely organized that way to avoid factions or any one majority taking too much power into hands. The basis of the checks and balances was to avoid a bad law being passed so the federalist beleived to avoid a bad law pass no law at all.
The last argument states That three branches of government created are to protect the basic rights of individuals. The legislative branch protects both levels of interest. House of Represenative protects people local interest and Senate protects people states interest. The executive branch protects presidentila interests and the judicial branch ensures good judgement in the best interest of everyone.
I would agree with the argument that people use civic virtue as a crutvh on the government to gain personal interests because if everyone claims that they self welfare is in benfit of civic virtue then a diversified republican government would turn in to a land of pleasing all citizens absolutely running in to what Madison wanted to avoid.Factions.
The federalists arguments were that, a strong national government is needed to make the country run properly and that would include a strong executive branch, the national government needs to be stronger than the states in order to promote the common good, and finally the national government will be accounted for with checks and balances and that will eliminate their chances of becoming corrupt. Elida and Tanisha both went into great detail about the arguments of the federalists but I respectfully disagree with Tanisha Tate's last argument. People will not always depend on the government to support them with civic virtue because civic virtue is not just the gov't helping people but people helping people. That is something that the government should instill in it's people. It is quite hard for a distant national government to do that.
Good job on the thorough explanation Tanisha, I will like to re-state that civic virtue was one argument because people must be able to put differences aside to achieve the common good. The Constitution created a system of checks and balances and by having people vote through state legislatures and electoral college only the most "capable" would be elected. This was to make sure someone who wasn't prepared enough to take control. Another argument is that the government would be separated in three branches and that the bill of rights were unnecessary because the people already have the right to rebel and remove officials who abuse their power.
I agree with Elida with all the three main central arguments that were stated by the federalist.
I would like to add an example of the purpose to the check and balance system which is that if congress or the president pass a bill into a law the judicial branch has the power to over ride the law if it is found unconstitutional; for this reason I agree that the check and balance system was utilized to prevent any faction or producing a tyranny government in which helped promote the goals of republicanism.
On the other hand I disagree with the fact that the check and balance system and with the separation of powers is the best way to promote a republican government because I think that having good representation in the house of representatives and the senate is the best way for the people to be heard.It also gives an assurance to the citizens of their power given from the government. As stated by philosopher John Lock, the people makes the government, therefore this is my opinion of the best way to promote republicanism.
Good job everyone! I totally agree!!! one of The federalist goals were to have a strong notional government, unlike that of the Articles of confederation. :( Another was to have a national government in which the power was equally distributed to prevent tyranny!
and to leave the electing of th president to the electoral college in order to prevent the fate of the nation from becoming a popularity contest.
I agree that in order to prevent tyranny in the government the powers must be equally distributed. its only fair, that way one branch is not stronger than the other. so before a decision is made, everyone must check with someone in order to get it passed.
although I did disagree with the notion that it is up to the government to promote civic virtue. when it comes to that , I think that is up to the people. it is up to the parents to teach their children this instead of the government. because if it were up to the government, then it would seem a bit oppressive.
Since the three central arguments are already kindly listed by: @Elida L and @Tanisha Tate, I will like to agree with @El Shabazz but add that the system of checks and balances was not only created to elect someone with the capability to control, but also to avoid tyranny within the government and still achieve the goals of republicanism.
The Anti-Federalists believed that the people's rights were not listed in the Constitution. Thus, they argued that a Bill of Rights was needed to list the unalienable rights of the people.
Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the enumerated powers already set limits to the government. Also, the people already had the right to remove people from office if they abused their power.
I would agree with the Anti-Federalists though, because by including a Bill of Rights it is CLEAR to see which rights belong to the people rather than just listing what powers belong to the government. This will avoid any assumptions from being made on what are the rights of the people.
Thankfully Elida presented all three central arguments, so it makes all our jobs easier. The one I agree most with is the idea that civic virtue can not be the sole source of guiding decision and protecting people's rights. Civic virtue is only as influential as one lets it be on them self. In every society there will be someone more worried about self interest than general welfare, and therefore a system must be set in place to intercept and match these ideas to prevent them from taking power. However, I generally agree with all of it.
Because my brothers and sisters have all posted the three central points that the Federalist used I would like to take this time to agree of some of the previous statements.
- Joshua R. and David make a great point when they say that civic virtue is a choice of the people and not of the government. I would like to also add that the purpose of the civic virtue under the classical republicanism was to promote the sacrifice of the citizens in order to protect the common good. I would also like to disagree with Tanisha because civic virtue is more in the involvment of "people helping people" in order to achieve the common good.
- I would like to also agree with Liset in that the check and balance system is used to prevent factions, but I disagree that when she implies that only having a nat'l goverment would be best. I believe that having three branches of the goverment is the best because it allows the three branches to make sure that the laws being passed are first consitutional, second promote the common good (civic virtue) and lastly protects individual rights.
I would also like to add to this dicussion the impotrance of Alexander Hamilton. In his arguments in the "Federalist 84" he points out that:
- The Consitution only allows nat'l government to excersice its enumerated powers.
- Nothing has given the national government authority over individuals.
- Adding a Bills of Rights would imply that the nat'l gover,ment had more power then given in the Constitution.
I agree with Elida's and Tanishia's statements on the 3 central argument, however, I still don't get the 1st argument. Could anyone explain the 1st argumrnt to me, please?? I agree with the 2nd and 3rd arguments that the government needs Check & Balance system to check each other branch in order to make sure that individual rights are protected. In the 3rd argument, I also agree that those 3, different branches will protect the basic rights because those 3 branches are created to protect people's rights. Again, anyone please explain the 1st argument to me. (><) Thanks
/forum/t-277790/assignment-4:pp-100-101#post-
