Federalists & Anti-Federalists
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
The contextual framework of the historic debate between federalists and anti-federalists involved major institutional expansion and reform as well as the political sphere. Although both groups of leaders embraced popular accountability as the standard of government legitimacy, their respective approaches differed quite significantly; reflecting different perspectives on the perils of citizen participation, concentrated power, and the need for effective and energetic government (Borowiak, 2007).
The leaders of the anti-federalists' movement, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson purported that the constitution of the United Stated should not be ratified. The basis of their argument was contingent upon, in their opinion, ratification gave too much power to the national government; pre-empting state authority; there was no bill of rights; the executive branch would be too powerful; congress, due to the "necessary and proper clause" provided too much power, and the national government could maintain an army even in times of peace...
A principal component of the anti-federalists argument was against the government merging into one nation as it would serve to summarily undermine state authority, and in their minds, individual freedoms and the "end of any legitimate government" (113).
Conversely, the federalists countered all of the complaints registered by the anti-federalists. The leaders of the federalists' movement, namely Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison argued that by separating the powers into three distinctive and independent branches, the rights of the people were protected, and because all three branches were equal, no one sect could assume control over another; having a list of rights could be prohibitive as any right that was not expressly listed could be constitutionally violated and protected by the laws of the land. By not listing a limited number of specific rights, then all the inherent rights of all citizens stood a better chance of being protected (Madison & Hamilton, 1787).
For the anti-federalists, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective argument, as evidenced by the…
