Federalist And Anti-Federalist Review Federalist Papers Were Essay

PAGES
4
WORDS
1217
Cite

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Review Federalist papers were written in support of the ratification of the U.S. constitution while anti-federalists were written in opposition of the same. The most important papers in federalist series were paper 10 and 5 both written by James Madison on the subject of power distribution within the federation. Anti-federalist paper 3 was written under the pseudonym Brutus and meant to oppose the arguments raised by Madison on power distribution. Keeping in mind these papers and the arguments made in the same, we might ask ourselves how these authors will review the modern government and its power distribution. If we look at Federalist paper 10 and the arguments rose in the same, we might connect it closely to cases of internal insurgence that can arise in large republic because of factions or interest groups. Let us see if this applies to our country today. Factions are present in any republic, large or small but Madison believes that a large republic is more suitable for tackling these groups and their anti-social activities than a small republic:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

A rule that is largely selected by people of a republic is more in control of the faction-related insurgencies than what he calls "pure democracy." Keeping in mind this, we can say that it applies to our country today where it has become easier to handle faction-related issues than we would have been able to do had the country been smaller. We...

...

However the U.S. is no stranger to trouble it but has mostly been able to effectively handle those troubles. For example we have had serious terrorist related problems and they are very much factional in nature because they represent the interests of one group over another. Madison would have been proud of him for predicting the influence of large republic against factional problems. Similarly the author of anti-federalist paper 3 would have found its own logic rather misguided because it speaks against large republic and method of power distribution in such republics.
"As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics… it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprising ambitious. That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of the entire European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission."

On the issue of factions thus, we can say that Federalist Madison would approve of the government of the U.S. today because it has proved that large republics can effectively control faction-related trouble. However on the issue of division of power in the three bodies of government Madison must not be very happy or approving because while Madison wanted complete separation of the three bodies so each would work independently, that is…

Sources Used in Documents:

REFERENCES

ANTIFEDERALIST PAPER BRUTUS 3

FEDERALIST PAPERS 10 AND 15


Cite this Document:

"Federalist And Anti-Federalist Review Federalist Papers Were" (2012, May 17) Retrieved April 23, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/federalist-and-anti-federalist-review-federalist-80126

"Federalist And Anti-Federalist Review Federalist Papers Were" 17 May 2012. Web.23 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/federalist-and-anti-federalist-review-federalist-80126>

"Federalist And Anti-Federalist Review Federalist Papers Were", 17 May 2012, Accessed.23 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/federalist-and-anti-federalist-review-federalist-80126

Related Documents

Federalist Paper #10, James Madison discusses the Union's ability to control and break the influence of specific factions over the governmental process. The paper includes many strengths, and a few weaknesses. Yet the overall paper convinced me of the purpose of the Union in this capacity. Federalist Paper # 10 begins with a discussion of the problem at hand, that of how to control the factions of a nation. The paper

The Federalists advocated a strong central government while the Anti-Federalists advocated state governments. The former feared that division would lead to fighting and instability. The latter feared that centralized power would lead to the kind of totalitarianism that the American Revolutionaries had just victoriously opposed in the War for Independence. This paper will describe why I would align myself with the Anti-Federalists because of their aversion for centralized power. The difference

Introduction The penning of the American Constitution during the 1787 Philadelphia convention was followed by its ratification. This formal process delineated within Article 7 necessitated at least 9 states’ agreement to implement the Constitution, prior to actually enacting it (Pole, 1987). Whilst the Federalists supported ratification, Anti-Federalists were against it. Those opposed to the constitution’s ratification claimed that it accorded disproportionate power to federal authorities, whilst robbing local and state bodies of their power, excessively. According to

Limits of Power As detailed in Federalist Paper No. 67, although the executive power of the new American republic had certain absolute executive privileges, such as the ability to fill vacancies in the Senate, most significant powers were either checked by Congress or balanced out by the other two branches of government. For example, Congress had the power to declare war, not the president. The independence of the judicial branch

As Treanor emphasizes, "What appears to be a puzzling, unconvincing, and uniquely aggressive exercise of judicial review was fully consistent with prior judicial decisions in which courts had invalidated statutes that trenched on judicial authority and autonomy" (455). Texas v. Johnson (1989). Perhaps as no other issue in the post-September 11, 2001 climate is that of flag-burning. The debate is heated and emotionally charged, and it is easy to get

Judicial review allows lawmakers to reflect changing morals and ideals when enacting legislation, but prevents them from allowing the hot-button topics of the moment to determine the laws of a nation. In fact, to really understand the success of judicial review, one need only look to the election in the Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Supreme Court may be the only body far-enough removed from party politics to ensure that