discussion response
Humanities
Paige
According to the text, Federalism was a step toward greater centralization of power, placing more power at the national level without completely undermining the power of the state governments (We the People 58). The ratification debates between the Federalists and Anti-federalists made it confusing for society to decide their stance on who should be in control. The Federalists believe that Federalism is a system of government in which a written constitution divides power between a central government and regional or sub-divisional governments. Both types of government act directly upon the people through their officials and laws (Federalism 2015). They are property owners, merchants, and creditors that believe the elites were most fit to govern society. Federalists favored a strong national government. On the other hand, Anti-federalists were small farmers, frontiersmen, shopkeepers, and debtors who believed in a government being state run and closer to the people. They favored the protection of individual rights. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation (Federalist vs. Anti-federalist 2019). Personally, I would consider myself an Anti-federalist. I believe that the state should have more power because they know what their community needs and they are closer to the people on a day to day basis. The national government is not interacting as closely with citizens in each individual state to know what is wanted and needed like the state government is. Greater national government control has become evident due to the need for federal grants and revenue sharing with the states. Wherever money is involved there are strings attached. Technology and the culture of society itself allows the detriment of national control in the United States. This greater overall control has been a detriment to our society causing civil unrest over broad generalized decisions for social and economic issues in this nation. Citizens of the United States of America want a greater say in their lives and freedom.
Ilia Brodskii
– Federalism
Over the course of the United States’ history, the government has grown to take on a considerably larger role than it initially played in passing and enforcing laws and regulations. Initially, the management was mainly in the hands of the individual states, with the government having a limited amount of power over them, such as expressed and implied powers. A debate went on beforehand between federalists, who supported the Constitution and the creation of a national government, and anti-federalists who opposed it and preferred a different system of government, one that would give more power to the states. The argument of the anti-federalists was that after escaping monarchy and achieving liberty they did not need it to be taken away by the formation of a new government. The federalists did not have such fears and assured people that the proposed Constitution would only protect individual rights. The two sides tackled on issues such as representation of many by few, tyranny of the few vs the many, and exactly how much power the national government should have.
If I was there at the time, it’s hard for me to tell whose side I would have taken, as both sides present legitimate arguments, and I would probably be most inclined to side with whoever’s point of view I was first familiarized with; however, the anti-federalists’ position that the distribution of power over the states was what set them apart from monarchies seems more appealing to me, so I would have probably been an anti-federalist.
lia Brodskii
Eli Brodskii – Federalism
Over the course of the United States’ history, the government has grown to take on a considerably larger role than it initially played in passing and enforcing laws and regulations. Initially, the management was mainly in the hands of the individual states, with the government having a limited amount of power over them, such as expressed and implied powers. A debate went on beforehand between federalists, who supported the Constitution and the creation of a national government, and anti-federalists who opposed it and preferred a different system of government, one that would give more power to the states. The argument of the anti-federalists was that after escaping monarchy and achieving liberty they did not need it to be taken away by the formation of a new government. The federalists did not have such fears and assured people that the proposed Constitution would only protect individual rights. The two sides tackled on issues such as representation of many by few, tyranny of the few vs the many, and exactly how much power the national government should have.
If I was there at the time, it’s hard for me to tell whose side I would have taken, as both sides present legitimate arguments, and I would probably be most inclined to side with whoever’s point of view I was first familiarized with; however, the anti-federalists’ position that the distribution of power over the states was what set them apart from monarchies seems more appealing to me, so I would have probably been an anti-federalist.
