Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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
Anti Federalist View on Judiciary
Transcript of Anti Federalist View on Judiciary
The Anti Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist papers were
meant to argue against a strong national government. The Anti-Federalists felt that the strong national government would take away the rights of the people and turn into a tyranny.
While many Anti Federalists
failed to discuss the Judiciary
Brutus' account of the judicial
power anticipated the full
development of judicial review
as well as the importance of
the judicial branch as a vehicle
for the development of the
federal government's powers,
both of which he opposed.
Anti-Federalists felt that the federal courts
would absorb the state judiciary systems.
Brutus argues against a Supreme court because it would take power from the state and local courts, thus taking power from the people.
Life long terms give too much power to the justices.
The justices could become too egocentric and abuse the power given to them through the Constitution.
Anti Federalist 78
"I question whether the
world ever saw, in any
period of it, a court of
justice invested with such
immense powers, and
yet placed in a situation
so little responsible."
The Judiciary Branch
against a strong
system due to
the fear that
there would be
too much power
in the Supreme
The Constitution’s broad definition of federal
jurisdiction would allow judges and lawyers
to expand the reach of the courts as far as
Concerns with the Judicial
System of the Constitution
Federal jurisdiction over suits between citizens
of different states was seen as particularly
threatening to state courts.
The power and independence of the judges,
who could not be removed for errors of decision
or judgment, was, in the words of a leading
Anti-Federalist writer, “unprecedented in a free country.”
The Constitution’s failure to explicitly
protect traditional rights to a jury
trial became one of the most compelling
criticisms raised by the Anti-Federalists.
The compromise was that the Anti-Federalist would ratify if the Bill of Rights were added as the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."