Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? Why would you classify yourself as one or the other? Don't forget to respond to a classmate in a separate post.
Federalists believed in a strong central government, while Anti-Federalists believed that states should have more power. To learn more about both sides, visit this website: http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html
Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? Why would you classify yourself as one or the other? Don't forget to respond to a classmate in a separate post.
33 Comments
Molly Gorczyca
10/21/2009 02:56:43 am
I would say I am a Federalist. I can see the Anti-federalist side, especially their argument about the bill of rights, but the Federalist had solutions to all of these worries. The Federalists were very understanding and took into consideration the wants of the Anti-federalists. They understood why there should be a bill of rights and promised they would add it. They kept their promise too and eventually added the Bill of Rights. Certain branches having too much power can be a bad thing, but that is why the three branches of government were created. The Federalists were organized, smart and took everyone’s opinions into consideration.
Reply
Craigalicious
10/21/2009 12:04:08 pm
Even though I live in a Federalist country, at heart, I am an Anti-Federalist. Certain laws can have a positive or negative effect in some states. Maybe the legalization of marijuana would work out great in California, but in New York, it may not. States can individually find those good laws that fit well with their citizens instead of the nation enforcing one big law upon all the states at once, for example, when the drinking age got bumped up to 21. I think it would work better if we did somethings together, and some not. Like an army would consist of volunteers from all 50 states, while the driving age may vary for some states that choose change it. I realize that it would be really complicated, but with some well thought-out guidlines, I could work.
Reply
Craigalicious
10/21/2009 12:13:58 pm
I agree with most of what Molly said. Yeah it was super necessary to have a bill of rights. Had we not, the government would of slowly but surely beccome a second Great Britain. And then there would be a vicious cycle of revolutions and people would be throwing babies and it would just be horrible.
Reply
Sarah
10/21/2009 10:14:32 pm
I would say that I am mostly an anti-federalist but I agree with the federalist side as well. I think that individual states are capable of governing themselves for the most part. There are so many different kinds of people in one state alone, and there is even more diversity among 50 states. So when the federal government creates laws and policies, who's to say it will apply to all of the states? Think about how different things are in northern states compared to southern states. At the same time, the three seperate branches in the federal government are very necessary. If states were in complete control of themselves with no central government, things could go wrong. When they came up with the constitution, they were concerned about a mobocracy, which would have been more of a problem had they not formed a strong central government.
Reply
Paige Luppo
10/22/2009 01:48:46 am
I would have to say that I am more of an anti-federalist because of their want for people to have more power in what happens with the government. I believe that the people should have some say in what happens in the country and be able to actively participate in what is happening. The anti-federalists didn't ratify the Constitution because it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, there was no bill of rights,
Reply
Bobby
10/22/2009 02:04:09 am
I am more of a Federalist. I believe in a stronger national government so everyone has the same set of rules. The country already tried a more anti-federalist approach and each state had a different set of laws. I also have many federalist views like keeping a standing army for protection. There also cannot be too much power given to any branch because there is a constant check of power from the other two branches.
Reply
Molly Gorczyca
10/22/2009 08:37:52 am
I agree with Sarah and Craig that certain laws may not suite certain states. But, that doesn’t mean all laws should be made according to each states preference. Like Paige said, “people should have some say in what happens in the country and be able to actively participate in what is happening.” Some states already have laws that vary with other states and it is working out well. I think there should be a balance between a central government and giving the states power. We have a pretty good balance now and it is working!
Reply
bri bri winters
10/22/2009 09:11:07 am
I would say I am a Federalist. i believe that we need a stronger national government so everyone is equal. i would mainly think also that anti-federalist would try to give too much power to any branch of government.
Reply
bri bri winters
10/22/2009 09:12:53 am
i agree with Sarah that when the federal government creates laws and policies, who's to say it will apply to all of the states.
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
10/22/2009 12:57:19 pm
I would define myself as an Anti-federalist mostly because I agree with the fact that the government (executive branch) has too much power. We are always told that the people control the government, and in my opinion, that is totally NOT accurate. For example, when we vote, we are told that “every vote counts,” when really it does not. Each state is either classified as democratic or republican… your vote is automatically switched over if your vote was part of the minority! Each vote should be counted as what it Actually is… to switch the entire state’s votes and to classify that state as either republican or democratic based upon the majority does not mean that the majority is right. Another reason why I would classify myself as an anti-federalist is because I believe that businesses should be run by the people without the interference of government. When the government steps in and starts running an entire field of business, for example health care, it eliminate Competition. Without competition, businesses do not strive as much to do better (for its customers/consumers) because if it does not matter how well they perform, why make an effort to do better? They would not care because they would be paid the same no matter how well they perform. (I do believe though that our country does need help in many aspects… but the whole health care reform thing is not going to fix all of our problems…) Also, the bill of rights was needed because it helps remind us of our basic freedoms that are rare elsewhere. It allowed our country to become diversified and tolerant of many different customs, beliefs and traditions, etc… this helped maintain somewhat of a stable nation because the people were not obligated to fight over whether ‘this’ or ‘that’ was right or wrong.
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
10/22/2009 01:11:05 pm
I agree with Sarah on the fact that the government needed to be divided between three different branches. It allows not one group of people or one person to become the complete decision maker of everything. But, I also disagree on the statement, “I think that individual states are capable of governing themselves for the most part,” because if each state governed themselves, there would be a lot of issues between the states because there would be more of a social, political, religious barrier. And, I don’t believe the states are capable of running themselves because just take a look at Michigan… we’re one of the worst states… it shows that we definitely need help and that the states cannot govern themselves completely.
Reply
Paige Luppo
10/24/2009 04:09:49 am
I agree with what Sarah said that the "three separate branches in the federal government are very necessary. If states were in complete control of themselves with no central government, things could go wrong," because I believe that things definitely could go wrong if that states were in complete control. I would also have to agree with Amber in her saying "I believe that businesses should be run by the people without the interference of government." I believe this because if it's your own business you should at least have a little more say in what you decide to do with it.
Reply
Zain B
10/25/2009 04:06:51 am
I'm an anti federalist. i do think the government has a little to much power and like many have already said we don't play as much of a role in government as we think. i classify myself as such because i think if we as the people of the united states had more of a role in the government we could change our nation quicker. i think the federalists answer to the bill of rights issue was stupid, if they just don't make one they could easily void rights we saw as common. i don't think the separation of powers is as full proof as the federalists seem to think. it distributes power but who's to say the three or at least 2 of them could work together in common interest. this could be both good and bad but its probably a good idea to assume they will do the worst at some point with this loophole.
Reply
Zain again
10/25/2009 04:15:58 am
I disagree with Bryon, i don't thing a stronger national government makes us equal. it does the opposite, currently most of our government is full of middle aged christian white guys who are bound to make their decisions on common interests which does not represent the nation as a whole. if the people had more say in government everyone would be more represented and choices would hopefully be on a more equal level. i do agree with Craig though, throwing babies is BAD!
Reply
Ashley
10/25/2009 08:13:45 am
I am a federalist. I think with the three branches in place to balance out the power that having a central government is a good idea. I feel that if we left the power to the individual states that we wouldn't be as united as we are today. I know that everyone thinks that the government is some evil thing that is controlling our lives too much, but I feel that we have the best government in the world, it doesn't go without its issues but what does. Though there is no government in place that would reflect the other option we considered to compare it to I still think we made the right decision.
Reply
Ashley
10/25/2009 08:17:15 am
I agree with Molly. The federalists were smart about it. They did add in the bill of rights as a solution and a compromise. I also can see how they would feel the way they did after the ordeal they were put through.
Reply
Muma
10/25/2009 10:12:07 am
I am a federalist. I believe in having a big central government that can take care of the people's wants and needs. When the states have more power the nation is far less united. That is why having a large central government is essential.
Reply
Muma (part of the first post)
10/25/2009 10:14:48 am
Federalist ideals fall dead in line with my own. Today Federalists would be known as Democrats and that is the only "party" i will vote for.
Reply
Sharkey
10/25/2009 10:16:13 am
I am an Anti-Federalist. I believe that with a large country, the national government cannot possibly rule the whole country justly. Hunting rules in rural Georgia and urban California should not be the same, for instance. States should have the power to decide things by themselves.
Reply
Sharkey
10/25/2009 10:19:19 am
I agree with craigory about his philosophy for state and national laws. Some states have completely different values, and some laws don't work in different places. Our nation is too large and diverse for "blanket" laws.
Reply
Muma
10/25/2009 10:23:32 am
I disagree with Craig. A strong central government can better serve the people. If the people want the government to do something they should bring it up to their Congressmen or start a petition to get their issue on the next ballot. It is your civic duty to take action, not to let the government to all the work for you. Sure the states can handle alot of the governing on their own, but it is the national government that pushes the states to continually improve. It is the national government's job to properly apropriate the capital and the resources to get things done. Remember, big government is there to serve little people, and little government is there to serve big people. (not a short joke on craig btw)... (maybe a little) ... (sorry i cant help it)
Reply
Morgan
10/25/2009 10:24:26 am
I would have to say that i am an Anti-federalist this is because right now i think the national government has to much power right now. I think it should be up to the states to make their own laws and enfroce them. I think that big cities should not have the same rules has a small city in Montana for example because the crime levels and how people live in those areas are completely different so the lawes should be too.
Reply
Morgan
10/25/2009 10:26:06 am
I agree with Sharkey that people in different areas in the country should have different laws in order to make their society run better. Also that laws in urban areas and country areas should be different.
Reply
Bobby
10/25/2009 10:38:25 am
I disagree with Zain. The federalists originally thought they wouldn’t make a bill of rights because they argued that there would be too many to list. The only reason the federalists put in the bill of rights was because the anti-federalists demanded it and wouldn’t ratify the constitution if there wasn’t a bill of rights.
Reply
Taylor Dean
10/25/2009 12:20:47 pm
I think I'm a federalist just because I don't agree with anything the anti-federalists believe in...Although, I do agree with having 3 branches of government to run our country. Also, that no one branch, like the executive branch, can overpower another branch like the judicial. I also think, unlike the anti-federalist that the national government could mantain the army in a peacetime. I think that federalists were into the constitution and freedom for the right reasons, not paranoid about a power hungry government like the anti-federalists.
Reply
Taylor Dean
10/25/2009 12:23:57 pm
I disagree with Morgan. Although, maybe states should have different laws based on their state, this would cause so many issues and problems within our country. People would complain about why people in one state get to do something and why others aren't able to do something. Everyone would say that something wouldn't be fair. It's also easier for law enforcement and the national government to enforce things on everyone and mantain order in our country. If someone worked for the government, they'd have to learn one set of laws, not 50, a different set for each state. It's easier and better if everyone has to follow the same laws.
Reply
Nat the cat cottrell
10/25/2009 01:34:21 pm
i think in todays time, i am a federalists just because its the same system thats been going on in the world forever so we've learn to deal and adapt to its ways. but i think if i were to live back then and recreate history i would have been an anti-federalist. and pushed for the movement. i think even though the branches of government are split up into three i think one still has more power over the other ex: the executive branch. are national government has way to much power over us today and they still did back then. for example the patriot act. perfect example and the way they can make laws as a whole to benefit us, but sometimes different states calls for different needs just like sarah said. the people need more of a say in the country because all in all we are the country if that makes sense i have no idea because it sounds good in my head. but i dont think we have a say in the gov like people say we do.
Reply
natcat
10/25/2009 01:36:19 pm
i agree with morgan, the states should create there own laws and enforce them.
Reply
Zac
10/25/2009 11:14:19 pm
I would have to put myself in the federalist category. I dont believe that the states should have their own power because then the country would not be as prosperous as we are now. Certain laws could inflict struggles between certain states and that could just cause another civil war.
Reply
Zac
10/25/2009 11:18:21 pm
I disagree with Sharkey because i do believe that the country can possibly rule the country justly. Laws are given to certain states and counties to accomidate for their geographical differences but i dont believe absolute power should go to the states.
Reply
Gaston
10/27/2009 02:23:21 am
I am an anti-federalist! I am this because I believe that the National government should be in control but only to an extent. The states should have more control to the government because they know what they want. And if what they want is not good for the country as a whole they can disgaurd it.
Reply
Mr. Howe
10/28/2009 06:39:33 am
I would have been on the federalist side. Even though the anti-federalists made valid points, they had no reason to worry. The federalists had answers to all of their worries, therefore, there was no more reason for them to oppose the Constitution. Besides, the states really needed the unity, and the Constitution is what made it happen.
Reply
Ryan "G" Howe
10/28/2009 06:45:07 am
I agree with Craig, when he says that we needed to make sure we had our rights. America was all about having our freedom and rights, and we would have had as many revolutions and civil wars as it took to make sure that we received our equality.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2010
Categories |