The transition to the US Constitution from the Articles of Confederation was not a seamless process; fixing numerous problems in the Articles of Confederation needed lengthy debates before and after convention. After drafting the constitution, two opposing sides emerged: one supported the constitution (federalists) while the other opposed it (anti-federalists). This paper explains the federalists v. anti-federalist debate, its history, arguments in favor of each opposing side, and explains federalism in the United States.
The federalist v. anti-federalist debate originated from the process of constitution ratification in the United States. The federalists supported the US Constitution ratification, although they faced resistance from anti-federalists who opposed it. The major issue that resulted in this debate was the Bill of Rights; according to the federalists, it was unnecessary since the constitution did not limit the people (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2016). In contrast, anti-federalists argued that a constitution gave the central government a lot of power, which could be used to oppress the citizens.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The federalists, led by Alex Hamilton, supported the constitution ratification and urged state governments to support it. The anti-federalists, like Patrick Henry, believed that the constitution threatened the liberties and sovereignty of states. States reacted differently to the debate; some strongly opposed the debate while others supported it. For example, Rhode Island strongly resisted the debate, while other states like New Hampshire and Virginia ratified the constitution (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2016). A compromise was, however, made to include a Bill of Rights in the constitution.
The federalists wanted to have a strong federal government. One argument was that the Articles of Confederation would not protect the nation. The federalists argued that having many divided states would render the US powerless as it would be impossible to form a strong united army. Also, federalists argued that a strong federal government would bring economic prosperity to the US as a whole. According to federalists having one economic system would help the US have control and influence economically, resulting in economic prosperity. In contrast, the anti-federalists held that a state government would enable the better protection of the people. Another argument was that the centralization of power, as observed in a federal government, would result in the political aristocracy. Hence, a strong state government-protected state sovereignty and individual liberty.
Federalism refers to a political system that combines separate states using an overarching political system. There are various types of federalism; they are dual, cooperative, new, and creative federalism. Dual federalism is a political philosophy in which the union and states share power while the federal government has more than individual states (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2016). In contrast, cooperative federalism philosophy in which the national government wields equal power with local/state governments. New federalism is a philosophy of shifting some authority and powers from the federal to the state government (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2016). Lastly, creative federalism is a political philosophy in which the federal government develop priorities for the state governments and provide them with resources to achieve federal government goals.
Dual federalism is the system currently applied in the US. The states and the federal government have authority in distinct jurisdiction spheres. The US federal government wields more power compared to the individual states. I believe that dual federalism is the best as it protects local jurisdictions from the federal government's reach while also allowing local states to develop laws that reflect the needs and desires of the inhabitants.
References
Krutz, G., & Waskiewicz, S. (2016). American Government 2e. Openstax.
