Federalism debated emanated from the issue of the ratification of the constitution of the United States in the 1780s. There were two groups where one supported the change of the constitution to give more powers to the central government while the opponents preferred a weak national government as they felt this would result to dictatorship as experienced Britain. Many essays were written concerning the ratification of the new constitution. The federalists supported the idea of ratification of the new constitution, especially concerning the bill of rights. Among many essays, Hamilton paper 84 provides different views of both federalism and against, hence his objections contributed a more unified view in the provision of liberty and promotion of human rights.
Federalism is viewed as a form of government where powers are divided between the two levels. These levels comprise the national or central governments and regional governments such as states, provincial among other forms at the lower cadres. The proponents of federalism viewed alluded that this form would lead to parity in the division of powers between the two levels of government. For instance, James Madison in his federalist papers referred to the United States constitution as a combination of both the federal government and other smaller units. Thus federalism perspectives are based on the democratic rules and formation a constitution that gives and defines powers between the central government others regional forms of governments (Klarman 2016). Thus, the proponents of federalism believed that this form is the best in bringing together diverse parties such as ethnic groups, nations and those in conflict. This form would government would accommodate all these diversities by reducing power centrality hence encourage coordination among the involved levels.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Anti-Federalists on the other hand, comprised of a group the opposed the constitution citing its failure to protect the rights of individuals and felt that the new system would undermine peoples’ liberty (Cost 2018). This group opposed the constitution on various grounds but the major reasons included the view that a stronger government was a threat to the states’ sovereignty. Besides, they argued that a centralized form of government would result in despotic characteristics as experienced in Great Britain hence, undermining personal liberties.
Hamilton’s Paper 84 Anti-Federalism Perspectives
Hamilton in the essay 84 is opposed to the inclusion of the bill of rights to the constitution as suggested by its founder and proponent James Madson. Hamilton in this paper contends that the addition of the Bill of Rights was not essential in the constitution of the United States. Hamilton argues that the initial purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the citizens, hence the Bill of Rights would serve no purpose. This argument was echoed by some citizens such as those in New York who felt that the constitution was in itself a bill of rights, hence no need of a separate bill (Millican 2014). Besides, he argues that the constitution should be concerned with the general interests and rights of the citizens and not emphasis on every right. Additionally, he feels that a bill of rights would non-essential and dangerous since it might limit some of the government powers. For instance, the government officials would claim for the mandate to exercise whatever was not expressly prohibited. Therefore, Hamilton alludes that limiting constitution would serve the same purpose as the bill of rights.
Another objection identified Hamilton that the government would create a distance from states and the people as it will be ignorant the citizens’ status and progress and this situation would cause rivalry between the state and national government because of powers. The essay countered this objection by explaining that the people at far places from the capital would have mechanisms and resources to keep track of the activities of the government through their representatives. He argues that the executive bodies and the departments of each state can sufficiently oversee the activities of government, hence they can be relied on. This paper also objects about the suggestion by some people for the removal of the obligation of states to pay their debts. More so, it was argued that establishment of the national government would lead to more expenses and also increase taxes, but this essay objected this view by alluding that the national government would perform the functions previously undertaken by state authorities without the need for additional costs. Hence, Hamilton supported the formation of both levels of government as this would not increase government expenditure leading to increased tax burdens and the gap between the public and the government. Instead, he suggests that the formation of the new form of government would reduce the cost and increases efficiency.
John Jay’s Paper 64 Federalism Perspectives
John Jay is one of the proponents of the constitution changes where in this essay he defended the provision of granting some powers to the president. In this essay, Jay argues that the president should be given the power to negotiate matters treaties with other nations, with the consent of a section of the senate. Jay alludes that the senate would be more dependable than the house since they server longer terms than the latter and are more knowledgeable in handling such matters as making treaties. He also contends that this power will provide a room where the president can negotiate secretly and then later can get advice from the senate (Klarman 2016). Jay explains that the formation of international treaties is a serious and complex issue that needs to be handled with secrecy. More so, foreign nations need to see some stability in the process so that they can trust the United State hence agreeing with the terms of the treaties. However, anti-federalists were suspicious and concerned and warned against granting too much power to the president in dealing with international issues as this would result in corrupt deals. Therefore, Jay suggested that the ratification of the constitution would be necessary as it would build trust with foreigners, hence the country may benefit from international negotiations. In this essay, the rights and liberties of the citizens would be protected through the representation of the senate since they elect them.
The idea of Judeo-Christian values and ethics has been refereed in the American politics and law and matters morals and more so, in the arguments of government, rights and liberties of citizens. This idea provided a unified foundation of shared morals and law between Christians and Jews. Some proponents of this idea include Franklin Roosevelt argued that shared values and Judeo-Christian foundations would lead to unity in the American population and define the role policymakers (Tatalovich & Daynes 2019). Gary Scott reinforces Roosevelt’s argument by likening social justice government’s actions to be morally superior approaches. Therefore, these proponents of Judeo-Christian ideas pleads to the people regardless of religious backgrounds to join each other in doing good work. Paul Johnson gives the history of American people and refers to them as men and women who have contributed to the growth of their nation through their struggles and sacrifices. From independence, people have exhibited unity in the preservation of the union that help them to solve their problems. The achievements of American people can be associated with intelligence, faith, skills and other cultural factors that have about humanity in the country. Johnson also refers to civil rights as a moral matter, hence the application so f these religious teachings should be applied in government operations (Foner 1997). These democratic principles can be applied to enhance liberty and citizens’ rights in government.
Joanne Freeman analysis the early political culture of the citizens of America by examining the public actions and papers written by influential people in America such as Alexander Hamilton where he revels a political government which is unstable due to lack of code of honour (Hogeland et al 2018). Besides, he asserts that the lack of party systems to inform the governance, rituals provided an atmosphere for political combat. Therefore, according to Freeman, the culture of honour provides a human look and political perspectives where the roles of leaders can be defined in the nation.
Conclusion
The debates of federalism and the ratification of the constitution was harmonized by Alexander Hamilton in his paper 84 by clarifying some of the objections raised by both opponents of the constitution in the United States and citizens who held diverse views concerning the division of powers by the government and preservation of citizens’ rights and liberties. The major objection to the constitution was the introduction of the bill of rights which Hamilton felt was unnecessary and dangerous since it would give the government more powers. In contrast, John Jay is a proponent of constitution who argued that the executive should be given more powers in matters of making treaties with foreign nations. This was suspected by the opponents as giving more powers would result in corrupt deals by the government. Besides, the issue of human rights has a religious backing in the Judeo-Christian idea where morals and ethical values should be incorporated into the government systems to enhance the liberties and rights of citizens. Other writers such as Paul Johnson and Joanne Freeman have also reinforced the importance of moles and ethical codes and culture in the governments to ensure the rights of citizens are observed.
References
Cost, J. (2018). The Price of Greatness: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Creation of American Oligarchy. Basic Books.
Foner, E. (1997). A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, 19, 22-23.
Hogeland, W., Freeman, J. B., Monteiro, L. D., Harris, L. M., Allgor, C., O'Malley, M. ... & Herrera, B. E. (2018). Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America's Past. Rutgers University Press.
Klarman, M. J. (2016). The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution. Oxford University Press.
Tatalovich, R., & Daynes, B. W. (2019). Social regulatory policy: Moral controversies in American politics. Routledge.
Millican, E. (2014). One United people: the federalist papers and the national idea. University Press of Kentucky.
