Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Feds Vs Antifeds

    Uploaded by

    api-328061525
    The Federalists supported ratifying the US Constitution as they believed it created a strong national government with enumerated powers to protect citizens across states. They also felt an enumerated bill of rights wasn't necessary and could be dangerous. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification as they saw the national government as having too much power over the states. They insisted on a bill of rights to protect citizens from a powerful central government. The Federalists viewed the new framework as properly uniting the country, while the Anti-Federalists felt a looser relationship between states could also maintain unity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Feds Vs Antifeds

    Uploaded by

    api-328061525
    3K views3 pages
    The Federalists supported ratifying the US Constitution as they believed it created a strong national government with enumerated powers to protect citizens across states. They also felt an enumerated bill of rights wasn't necessary and could be dangerous. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification as they saw the national government as having too much power over the states. They insisted on a bill of rights to protect citizens from a powerful central government. The Federalists viewed the new framework as properly uniting the country, while the Anti-Federalists felt a looser relationship between states could also maintain unity.

    Original Title

    feds vs antifeds

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Federalists supported ratifying the US Constitution as they believed it created a strong national government with enumerated powers to protect citizens across states. They also felt an enumerated bill of rights wasn't necessary and could be dangerous. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification as they saw the national government as having too much power over the states. They insisted on a bill of rights to protect citizens from a powerful central government. The Federalists viewed the new framework as properly uniting the country, while the Anti-Federalists felt a looser relationship between states could also maintain unity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views3 pages

    Feds Vs Antifeds

    Uploaded by

    api-328061525
    The Federalists supported ratifying the US Constitution as they believed it created a strong national government with enumerated powers to protect citizens across states. They also felt an enumerated bill of rights wasn't necessary and could be dangerous. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification as they saw the national government as having too much power over the states. They insisted on a bill of rights to protect citizens from a powerful central government. The Federalists viewed the new framework as properly uniting the country, while the Anti-Federalists felt a looser relationship between states could also maintain unity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

    SS.7.C.1.8

    Compare the views of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist about the ratification of the U.S.
    Constitution by placing the tiles under the viewpoints they represent. After completing the
    activity, answer the multiple choice questions on your handout.
    Concern about
    Federalist Viewpoint
    Anti-Federalist Viewpoint
    Government Power

    Power between the


    states and national
    government
    (What type of power
    should each level of
    government have? How
    much power should each
    level have?)

    An enumerated listing
    of individual rights.
    (Should the new
    constitution specifically
    list rights that people
    have? Why or Why not?)

    Legislative Powers
    (How much power should
    the national Legislation
    [Congress] have?)

    Powers of the national


    government
    (How much power should
    the national government
    have? [this is your
    President, Congress, and
    Supreme Court] Explain)

    The country needed to


    be united

    (Should the country


    become more united or is
    it fine the way it was
    under the Articles of
    Confederation?)

    Federalists vs
    AntiFederalists
    Key
    Concern about
    Government Power

    Power between the states


    and national government
    (What type of power
    should each level of
    government have? How
    much power should each
    level have?)
    An enumerated listing of
    individual rights.
    (Should the new
    constitution specifically
    list rights that people
    have? Why or Why not?)

    Legislative Powers
    (How much power should
    the national Legislation
    [Congress] have?)

    Federalist Viewpoint

    Anti-Federalist Viewpoint

    The national government


    would have enumerated
    (listed) powers that would
    protect all the people no
    matter which state they
    lived in.

    Too much power would be


    taken from the states; a
    federal system was too
    new and untested.

    By not listing specific rights


    in the Constitution, the
    people were protected better
    than they would be if the
    Founders tried to list all the
    rights they could possibly
    think of. They might leave
    something out, and that
    could be dangerous for the
    people.

    The necessary and proper


    clause/elastic clause
    would allow Congress to
    respond to the needs of all
    the people.

    The Constitution needed a


    specific listing of rights to
    protect the people from
    the national government.

    The necessary and


    proper/elastic clause
    would give too much
    power to Congress.
    Congress would use the
    necessary and
    proper/elastic clause to
    abuse its power.

    Powers of the national


    government
    (How much power should
    the national government
    have? [this is your
    President, Congress, and
    Supreme Court] Explain)

    The country needed to be


    united
    (Should the country
    become more united or is
    it fine the way it was
    under the Articles of
    Confederation?)

    Separation of powers and


    checks and balances
    protected the people from
    any branch of government
    becoming too strong.

    Separation of powers and


    checks and balances
    would not do enough to
    protect the people from
    any branch of government
    becoming too strong. The
    national government
    would still have too much
    power.

    The Constitution would


    better unite the country
    than the Articles of
    Confederation.

    The nation could be united


    while the states would
    keep their individual
    identities.

    You might also like