Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Federalist v Anti-Federalist combined

No description
by

Mr. Dellorco

on 8 December 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Federalist v Anti-Federalist combined

Federalist
v
Anti-Federalist
Choose one issue that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have opposing viewpoints on?
Leaders:
Alexander Hamilton / James Madison / John Jay

Ideas:
The Federalists favored the ideas of a stronger federal (national) government.

Wanted to ratify the Constitution
Supported Strong National Government (take power away from States)
Thought that Checks & Balances would protect peoples rights
Don’t need a BILL OF RIGHTS
Wanted a strong Executive branch (President)

How the government should be structured:
Federalist
The Federalists thought the Constitution was structured well enough to guard against tyranny in the national government and that no Bill or Rights was necessary.
The separation of powers protected the rights of the people.

Listing rights can be dangerous.
Federalist Arguing Points
Leaders:
Patrick Henry / George Mason / Samuel Adams

Ideas:
The Anti-Federalists favored the ideas of a stronger state governments.
Most power should stay with States
Wanted Legislative Branch more powerful than Executive Branch
Refused to ratify without a BILL OF RIGHTS
No National Bank
Anti-Federalist
How the government should be structured:
The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution because they thought it gave the national government too much power, and that it might lead to tyranny once again.
It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
There was no bill of rights.
The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.
Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.
The executive branch held too much power.
anti-federalist Arguing Points
Watch the Video to answer the bell work question
Warren Buffett
"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
Federalist
Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.
If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones?
Anti-federalist
A strong national government is necessary to protect
the minority from the majority. Within states, it is easy for those in power to oppress those who are not. If we
spread power across states to the national level, we can ensure that the interests of all the people are addressed.

The Constitution will not allow a tyrannical government to long survive. If a tyranny develops, the people have several ways within the law to remove an oppressive leader from power. In Great Britain, the king is inviolable. In America,the president is not
The Constitution is not perfect. No one expects it to be. The amendment process will give future generations the ability to correct the problems we cannot foresee. The people will have the power to change their own government for the better. Amending the Constitution is a powerful tool, and we must take great care to ensure that the proper procedure is followed. Otherwise, our free
and open government will crumble to the ground.

The Confederation cannot effectively deal with our foreign relations. The problems with Britain and the Barbary pirates reflect the Articles’ inability to cope with foreign problems. But our problems are not limited to foreign affairs. At home, we must address currency regulation, fill our national treasury, and prevent conflicts between the states. Only a strong national government can achieve our aims.
Today we may be protected from government abuse and
encroachment on our rights. But what will happen to future
generations? It is inevitable that some government leaders
will become corrupt and deny the people their natural
rights. Without a bill protecting the rights of the people, the
Constitution will set a course for ruin.

The Constitution will inevitably give the president the power of a
king. His office is untested, and we cannot safely say that he will not
abuse his power. The federal government has far too much power,
and the states will not be strong enough to check an abusive national government. If we are not fully certain that the Constitution will succeed, we cannot think of threatening our Republic with tyranny.

Under the Constitution, the legislature has too much ambiguous
power. There is no security for the right of the people to participate
in free and fair elections, and it is inevitable that the president will
have undue influence over the powers of Congress. The courts, too,
will tend to oppress the people. The government is not federal, but
national. Before we adopt it, we must amend the Constitution to
prevent an abuse of power and infringement on our liberties.

Our current form of government cannot long survive. We must act to preserve the union of states. But, as written, the federal Constitution will give our national leaders unchecked power. What is to stop them
from usurping the rights and needs of their very supporters? The Constitution will provide for an effective government only if we can expect a bill of rights to be added upon ratification.
Full transcript