Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dora-johns |
View: | 231 times |
Download: | 4 times |
The Ratification Debate
Federalist v. Anti-Federalist
The Ratification Process
• The Framers wrote the Constitution but it had to be approved by each state before it could become law (RATIFIED)
• Special “ratifying conventions” were set up by each state
• These delegates were elected by popular vote
• Needed approval by 9 of the 13 states
Federalist
• Definition: The people who supported the Constitution
• They wanted it ratified (approved into law)
• Who:– James Madison– George Washington– John Jay– Alexander Hamilton
Anti-Federalist
• Definition: The people who did NOT support the Constitution.
• They did NOT want it ratified (approved into law).
• Who: – Thomas Jefferson (argued
for a Bill of Rights)– Patrick Henry– George Mason
1. Anti-Federalist Argument
• Large government cannot rule appropriately • Republics require active participation• Voters need to know what laws are made• Results: Distant government means…
– Tyranny (chaos since no law)– The military strictly enforcing the law
• Representatives need to know how the voters feel about particular issues
• Result: Distant government means…– Get unfair laws that the people do not want
1. Federalist Argument
• Federalism makes sure we still have state and local government
• Federalism: sharing power between state and national government
• States can communicate national law and establish fair state laws
2. Anti-Federalist Argument
• Large government means differences in opinions and therefore an inability to pass laws
• Republics work best in small communities
• Small communities share the same values
• Means there is more agreement about what the government should do
• Laws are easier to pass
2. Federalists Argument
• Larger government makes it difficult for one group to dominate government
• All people are self motivated
• Need a large government to monitor everyone’s selfishness
• Large government means more debating
• Harder for one group or state to control another group
3. Anti-Federalist Argument• Federal government
has too much power• Federal government
can tax• Supremacy clause
means that all the national laws are superior to state laws
• Supreme Court above state courts
• States cannot stop unfair laws
3. Federalist Argument
• The federal government needs this power or every state will be destroyed
• Have already had one rebellion
• Have foreign countries who do not want to trade with us
• Have foreign countries who could invade and try to colonize us
4. Anti-Federalist Argument
• The President has too much power
• President controls a permanent army
• President can pardon any crime
• President not a position for life—expected to walk away after 4 years
• Federalists themselves say all people are selfish
• He will misuse his power
4. Federalist Argument
• Have a system of checks and balances in place– Supreme Court can
declare his actions unconstitutional
– Legislative branch can impeach him
– Voters can decide not to re-elect him
5. Anti-Federalist Argument
• The Constitution does not have a Bill of Rights
• States’ Bill of Rights are not good enough since supremacy clause says national laws above state laws
5. Federalist Argument
• We do not need a Bill of Rights since there is a system to limit government power
• Laws can be vetoed, overruled, and declared unconstitutional
• States can amend the constitution
• Voters can elect new leaders
The End of the Story
• It is a 10 month debate• Compromise: States
agree to ratify the Constitution if Congress agrees to add a Bill of Rights the first year it is established
• Bill of Rights will protect states from a tyrannical federal government