Federalist vs Anti-federalist Papers

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 Anti-Federalists, the American federal government wouldn’t be able to adequately represent its citizens owing to the size of the nation and its population which deemed it impossible for federal branches to locally respond to citizens’ concerns (Lewis, 1967; Amar, 1993). Moreover, they were concerned about the absence of the provision of criminal jury trials, besides the absence of a bill of rights within the Constitution, and desired guaranteed protection of a few fundamental freedoms for citizens, including freedom of speech (Martin, n.d.). In their opinion, the Constitution accorded federal courts excessive power, to local and state courts’ detriment. They contended that federal judges would be overly far away and thus unable to mete justice out to average citizens.

According to Federalist Paper no. 51, the American government naturally prevented the formation of factions, thereby safeguarding its citizens’, rather than governmental authorities’, interests. The pro-ratification group – the Federalists – claimed there was no need for a Bill of Rights, and that enacting one would serve to erect a paper barrier which restricted, rather than safeguarded, citizens’ rights. But, ultimately, they had to yield and declare their readiness to formulate and add amendments in the year 1971 which would become the Bill of Rights. In th 9th federalist paper, it was argued that “a firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection” (Straub, 2010). In the Federalists’ opinion, federal courts lacked proper jurisdiction, with several legal domains left to local and state courts. According to the Federalists, federal courts could appropriately safeguard the people against governmental abuse, and secure their freedom. The next Federalist Paper states that a system of balances and checks existed within the Constitution, ensuring no governmental branches was able to dominate the other.

The following elements of the anti-federalist papers appeal to me; the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, power consolidation, and a unitary president. All Anti-Federalists held their own distinct opinion with regard to a fresh American constitution, but generally concurred with each other on the following points: 1) the fresh Constitution accorded disproportionate authority to the Congress, to states’ detriment; 2) the idea of a unitary president disconcertingly resembled a monarchy which would ultimately give rise to courts of intrigue within Washington D.C.; 3) citizens’ freedom would be ideally safeguarded if states, rather than the federal bodies, were accorded power; and 4) The absence of a Bill of Rights would make federal authorities tyrannous (Amar, 1993; Pole, 1987). Currently, I enjoy the benefit of hindsight, but without this advantage in those days, the Anti-federalists clearly made strong arguments; their influence is ideally illustrated by the landmark Constitutional Bill of Rights.

The Federalists desired a powerful government and executive branch; the Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, desired lesser power at the federal level. While the former were against the idea of a Constitutional bill of rights and deemed the new constitution to be sufficient, the latter made strong demands for it. The 1787 Constitutional Convention for amending the Confederation Articles led to numerous compromises aimed at appeasing regional groups. Consequently, the Great Compromise led to the Virginia and New Jersey Plans for creating a Constitutional legislative system.