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 Main Criticisms That The Anit-Federalists had about the constitutio was that the government had to much power within the constitution.
2) Some of the criticisms was that th senate had more power then the represented. Agree because this showas how that the senate has to much control and everybody should be treated equally. Also because the ppeople who represent you know what you want in the people in the senate dont know excatly what you want. So they should be allowed some type of limits.
2B.) Allowing the Presdient to "Pardon" (Commit Crimes For President And Get Away With It) certain people. Disagree; Because its not fair to people who commit the same type of crimes that the people who doing it for the President are doing. Everybody should be punished equally because they are citizens also.
1) To begin, I do not think that the Anti-Federalists had three central arguments. I believe that they had one central argument divided into two main ideas. I agree with both, Antynia and Jacki, that the Anti-Federalists central argument was that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Then the Anti-Federalists broke their argument into two parts: there was no evidence of a balanced government in the constitution, and there were no signs of the promotion of the common good.
2) For the most part, the Anti-Federalist brought up valid arguments, however unlike the Federalists they had no real evidence to prove that the Constitution would not work, due to the fact that no one had ever tried to create such a government.
- The main issue that I agree with is that the republic was too large of a population to promote the common good. On the other hand, maybe a large population wasn't such a bad idea.
- I believe if civic virtue was a major concern of the Anti-Federalists, they would see that more people would sacrifice their selfishness in a large republic in order to support a common need. In a large republic, a strong central government is there to direct the citizens in one direction, no matter where you live or who you are, this particular action is instilling the idea that everyone is treated the same.
- Although we do not look the same or act the same, we all are held to the same expectations, this is the practice of a small, uniformed community with the identity of a large, diverse community.
Oops! Antynia and Aquilla, I think you are talking about the Anti-federalists, but this assignment is about the Federalists.
1) The Federalists' three central agruments were:
*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 Consitution 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 interests in the government will protect basic rights.
2) The Federalists' arguments I agree with is 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 because like the federalists argued you cant expect people that live in large and diverse nation, living hundreds miles away, to sacrifice something of their own to benefit others. A argument I disagree with is the representation of different interests in the government will protect basic rights because nothing really seem wrong with it.
1. The Federalists three main arguments are: civic virtue, the way the Constitution is organization,and the government should protects the people's basic rights.
2. I agree with the arguments that the government should protect the people's basic rights, because that whats the purpose of the government is make sure that everyone in the country rights are protected
I would like to agree with the three main arguments that Evie Washington stated. I would like to add on to her second argument and tell why its important to have a separation between the powers.it is important because if one branch has to much powers than every other branch would have to follow that one branch and if this happens then the government will soon led to tyranny. also the people would look at the government as being abusive.
I agree with all three arguments but the one i agree with the most is the one about the civic virtue because the common good doesn't always be met in small uniform communities.
1)I agin with Antynia that the anit-federalists thought that the government had to much power.
2)the majority could outvote the minority in a democracy if a faction was a minority
but if the tables were turned and the faction was the majority then their ideologies would be put put in place.
3) i disagree with the classical republican idea that the common good would be achieved in small uniform communities. even though groups can be divided they can still have the same idea that benefits the common good.
1)
The Federalists three main arguments were that civic virtue was now obsolete, the organization of the Constitution was best for republicanism, and that the different interests protected in the government would protesct the people's basic rights.
2)
I agree with all three of the Federalists main arguments. I feel that no matter how hard we try to do good, there would always be a selfish person or group that will upset the established order. As far as the other two arguments go, I agree with them because they protect both the common good and the people's basic rifghts, while ensuring that no one branch could overpower the other two and become tyrannical.
1.The three central arguments was civic virtue can no longer be relied on as sole support of the government,checks and balances is the best way to promote goals of republicanism and representation in the government will protect basic rights.
2.I agree with civic virtue can no longer be relied on cause you cant always expect every citizen to do whats rights. I dont disagree with anything.
• The best way to promote the goals of republicanism is by the form that the Constitution organize the government into branches.
Also the governtment had to much power
I also agree with Aquilla entire statement
but I agree with the Federlist when hey feel that the majority will help the common good i believe it will not. Just because the society is small doesnt mean that everyone is going to agree with each other.
This is looking more like a discussion than before. However, I think we could make the conversation more productive if we focused on explaining our points of view more thoroughly. When you agree, explain why. When you disagree, give more than a one-sentence explanation. It will help us develop our ideas better.
1) The three arguments are:
* The government does provide a plan for a republican government
* The Constitution creates a good balance of power
* The government would not become tyrannical.
2) I agree with the argument that the necessary and proper clause and general welfare clause are needed because it will help the government do its job to protect the people, and make quick decisions.
1) I agree with Brittnie when saying that the Federalists' three central arguments were:
*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 Consitution 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 interests in the government will protect basic rights.
I would also like to add that the Federalists' main argument was that the Constitution gave the national government too much power.
2)The arguments that I do disagree with is that the representation of different interest in the government will protect basic rights. The government should protect rights regardless, it shouldn't be based on the governments interest. I agree that the seperation of powers and checks and balances are the best ways to promote the goals of republicanism because the Federalist believed that this would stop from creating tyranny. I also agree that civic virtue can't be relied on to help protect peoples' rights and promote the welfare. No one is no longer sacrificing their rights or their power for someone else because we don't live in a small, uniformed community and everyone has different views on how the government works.
I beleive that every one has great points and I deas when saying that the three central arguments were: The government does provide a plan for a republican government, The Constitution creates a good balance of power, and The government would not become tyrannical.
I would agree with Ryanne about the necessary and proper clause. However i would have to agree with the plan of creating a good balance of power. reason being becuase, it helps the government know its limits and helps keep them from harming the society. Whithout recognition of your limits, its's easier for you to take advantage of them.
1.) I agree with Ryanne when she said the three arguments are:
- The government does provide a plan for a republican government
- The Constitution creates a good balance of power
- The government would not become tyrannical. But I also agree with Alexus when she said you should also add the national government has too much power. But the national government needs to be powerful so it can fulfill its duties.
1) What were the Federalists' three central arguments?
I'm going to have to agree with everyone so far on the three central arguments.
2)
I agree with a government with a good balance in power, instead of a government with too much power, because a lot can go wrong if your president is corrupt.