As a result, the Bill of Rights was implemented into the Constitution, to address the concerns of anti-federalists. While at the same time, it gave the federalists a strong central government that could adjust with: the various changes. This is significant, because it shows how the Constitution is a working document that seeks to provide a balance between: personal freedoms and the need to protect the nation. In many ways,

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

Constitution Debates During the intellectual debate over the Constitution, the Anti-Federalist case against the Federalists' proposed system of checks and balances was made in a number of different ways. It is worth understanding the logic of the Anti-Federalists' arguments before we turn to the Federalist response to those arguments. A first case made against checks and balances is an obvious one: that it diminishes direct accountability to the people on the part

Anti-Federalist & Bill of Rights The Anti-federalist vs. Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. Though the length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the constitution was approved by the first congressional convention to June of 1788 when Virginia was the first to ratify the constitution of the United States. The

In addition it was agreed that issues of federal budget, revenue and taxation would originate with the House of Representatives. The Great Compromise issued in a spirit of success to the convention and essentially ended the division between the small and large states. However, it did nothing to alleviate the pending debate between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Decisions on how much power to give to the people and to

The Virginia debates over ratification highlight two key issues which are still subject to debate today: the power of the state vs. The power of the government and whether more government enhances our liberties or suppresses them. Anti-federalists pointed to taxation by both state and federal bodies as an example of the "dangerous principles" that the constitution could represent (Graebner and Richards 143). Federalists in turn defended the document by