Evidence why Anti-Federalist are better?

The federalists were those people who supported the new constitution. These people were for; big national government, taxes, executive, legislature, judicial branches, inter-state trade, a standing army, and assumption of state debt. These people tended to be rich and big land owners or merchants with a vested interest in stable trade and keeping their wealth. Bankruptcy laws were weak, which created a problem for merchants and industrialists. They were afraid of anarchy and loosing their money. The federalists were afraid of debate over the constitution, and people thought they were playing dirty.

The anti-federalists were the opponents of the proposed constitution. They were worried about tyranny by government which the proposed constitution did not provide against. They thought that a concentration of power meant the end of liberty, freedom, and state sovereignty. They were more conservative, and afraid of the size of the new proposed national government. They thought the powers of federal government should be limited, and republics could only exist in a small territory. These people tended to be farmers and the lower class. They could loose their land with new, stricter bankruptcy laws. The government is not supposed to take your property away; it is supposed to protect it for you. "Thirdly, the supreme court cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative." (The Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams, p.47) The anti-federalists had a great deal to fear in adopting a constitution in which the idea of community and sovereignty was to be taken over by a strong republican government, separate from the state. Their fears were genuine, and I am not the kind of person to side with the political elite. This is why I will argue the side of the anti-federalists.

The anti-federalists saw the proposed constitution as threats to rights and liberties won from England. In the Revolution, these people fought for states' rights, not a national government. People had experienced at first hand an example of government tyranny and had fought a war against it. It could have seemed that America may have been trading one group of political elites for another. Americans were scared and did not trust a big national government. Although both parties were for free government and free markets, the anti-federalists were relying upon lessons in history that seemed to tell a story that free government could only function in a small territory where people have common interests. The federalists saw one nation, sovereign republics joined together.

The anti-federalists did not want to abandon the articles of the confederation which stated that sovereign power lies within each state, and the role of the government was limited. If each state was to be governed by a large republican government, could small states or regions be treated unfairly and under-represented? Sure. There were unavoidable dangers in a distant government. One section could be dominating the whole country. Clashes of political and economic interests by different sections of the nation were possible. There was a fear of sectional politics. A large, distant republic would be too far for people to participate in public affairs. It wasn't government they feared, but a corrupt and detached government.

Privacy and protection of property from the actions of government must have been on the minds of the farmers. To the colonists, property meant more than just land. It meant the right to earn a living. How could they be protected from the government taking these things away? The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution and provided a solution to many of these fears. Many states' constitutions already had a Bill of Rights; the proposed constitution however did not. One of the biggest problems with the constitution, stated by the anti-federalists, is that it did not contain a Bill of Rights.

Recent events such as the Supreme Courts ruling that eminent domain may be invoked and your property, ( Home, house , and land ) can be taken from you by a private corporation, or business, if it can be demonstrated that they can make more money by owning your property than you can. This act demonstrates that the Federal Government has under the current administration become in fact a Federalist Government. This overrules one of the basic rights guaranteed to the people by the Bill of Rights. This is only an example of the changes that have taken place since the beginning of the century. In modern democracies eminent domain can only be invoked during times of war and for National Security.

The Watergate Hotel incident demonstrated to the people of the our country an attempt by the right-wing Republicans known today as neo-cons ( Federalists ) to establish a one party system of government. ( Like that of Germany under Hitler or the USSR under Stalin.) One of the main characters in that criminal action G.Gordon Liddy, is still to this day involved as a spokesman for the Republican Party. Even though he was convicted and sentenced to a Federal Prison.

With out anti-federalists there would have been no Bill of Rights. Attempts are today being made by the neo-cons ( Federalists ) to do away with many of the protections given to the citizens of the U.S. by those articles. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, these are just a few of the examples that have recently come under attack by giving too much power to the Federal Govt. under the current administration.

Hope this helps you with your debate kid........ :o)

Examples Of Anti Federalists

He does lean federalist, implied by way of his solutions regarding substitute. If he have been anti-federalist, he does no longer have lots ability to make this alteration. even nevertheless, to be honest, G.W. Bush categorized himself anti-federalist (no longer that he actual reported that word, he can not even say "nuclear") yet had extra of an impact in direction of a centralized government than all and sundry when you consider that FDR. Patriot Act? Bush Doctrine? Yikes.