1) What were the Federalists' three central arguments?
2) Which of the Federalists' arguments do you agree with? Which do you disagree with? Why?
1. The 3 main arguments that the federalist made were:
-Civic Virtue can no longer be relied on as the support of a government that can protect people's rights and promote the common good.
- The way that the consitution organizes the government, such as checks and balances.That is the best way to promote Republicanism.
-The 3 differnt branches is the best way to represent different intrest within government thats will protect basic rights.
2.I agreewith the 3 branches argument because even though everyone has different intrest all their ideas comes togethe to protect people basic rights.
1)The three Arguments were:
1. Civic virtue can no longer be relied on as the sole support of a govenremnt that can prtect people's rightsand promote their welfare.
2. The way the Constitution orgainzes the government, including the seperation of poweres and checks and balances, is the best way to promote the goals of republicanism.
3.The representation of different interest inthe govenrment will protect basic rights.
2) I agree with the 2nd argument because using checks and balances and the seperation of powers gives each baranch power to make sure that neither of them have so much power. Also, according to John Madison, The system of checks and balances passed so many laws
1) the three federalist central arguments:
- civic virtue can no longer be relied on as the sole support of a government that can protect people's rights and promote their welfare.
- the way the Constitution organizes the government, including the separation of powers and checks and balances, is the best way to
promote the goals of republicanism.
- the representation of different interets in the government will protect basic rights.
2) i don't disagree with the central argument i think that are okay. i agree with ashley that 2nd argument is good because will create a balance between branches and will prevent tyranny.
1) A strong executive branch is necessary
2) The national government would have more power then it did under the articles of confederation.
3) That history has shown us that no matter if the group is small or big there will still be problems.
I agree with my number three that no matter how big or small the group is there will still be different taste.
I strongly agree with Geizel when she stated that through out history no matter what there will always be trouble. but at the same time I would like to disagree as well because in my opinion if a something is small such as a community there would be no poblems because everyone would be uniform.
1. There were three central arguments in which the federalist used to pursuade majority of the supporters for the ratification those were:
- Civic Virtue can no longer be relied on as the support of a government that can protect people's rights and promote the common good.
- The way the Constituition organizes the government, including the seperation of poweres and checks and balances, is the best way to promote the goals of republicanism.
- The representation of different interest in the governmentt will protect basic rights.
2. I agree with the second argument of how civic virtue cant be relied upon as a sole power for the governmet, the reason that i agree with this is because when having a large,divere nation one cannot expect a person to live towards te common good at the benefits of others because no one is uniform and everyone has their own view so the government soley rely on this ideology of how one carries themselves
Civic Virtue can no longer be relied on as the support of a government that can protect people's rights and promote the common good. The way that the constitution organizes the government, such as checks and balances.That is the best way to promote Republicanism.And that the three different branches is the best way to represent different interest within government that's will protect basic rights.
I agree completely.