New Constitution: Support Or Opposition?

The United States Constitution, written in 1787, sparked an ideological divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton, supported the Constitution and a stronger federal government, citing the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. They believed in the separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent tyranny. On the other hand, Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, opposed the Constitution, arguing it granted too much power to the federal government at the expense of states' rights. They demanded a bill of rights to guarantee individual liberties, fearing the potential for a pseudo-monarchy. The Constitution ultimately prevailed, ratified in 1788 and amended with a Bill of Rights in 1791.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

$8.32 $8.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Essential Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches and Writings

$15.96 $16.95

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$79.05 $85

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had opposing views on the new US Constitution, with the former in favour of it and the latter against it. The Federalists believed in strengthening the national government and argued that the US government needed more authority to enforce laws across states. They felt that a powerful president would enforce laws and protect the country from foreign attacks. They also believed that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution would remain with the states.

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, argued that a strong federal government would undermine the power of the states and the people. They believed that Americans' freedoms were better protected by state governments as they understood the needs of their citizens better. They also felt that a single leader could misuse their power and become an "elected king", potentially leading to tyranny.

The debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were heated and sometimes became violent. Both sides held meetings and marches to gain support for their respective positions. The Federalists were ultimately successful in getting the Constitution ratified, but the Anti-Federalists managed to secure a bill of rights to protect the liberties they felt were violated by the Constitution.

The differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were complex and had a significant impact on the early political landscape of the United States. The Federalists' success in shaping the Constitution strengthened the central government, while the Anti-Federalists' efforts ensured the inclusion of a bill of rights to safeguard individual liberties.

The need for a bill of rights

The Bill of Rights, which comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution, guarantees civil rights and liberties to individuals, including freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. Anti-Federalists, concerned about the potential concentration of power in the executive branch and a strong central government, saw the Bill of Rights as a way to explicitly define and protect the rights of the people. They believed that certain rights were so fundamental that they should always be retained by the people and needed to be clearly stated in a bill of rights.

Federalists, on the other hand, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. They believed that the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution already delegated all rights and powers to the people, and that any rights not explicitly granted to the federal government were retained by the states or the people. Federalists also held the view that bills of rights throughout history had been ineffective in times of crisis and that the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government were better safeguards of people's rights.

However, as the new nation evolved, it became apparent that certain freedoms and rights needed to be explicitly spelled out and protected. Amendments were proposed and the idea of a national Bill of Rights gained traction. James Madison, a strong supporter of the Constitution, played a key role in drafting and proposing amendments to address the concerns of both Anti-Federalists and Federalists, ensuring the Constitution's survival through the ideological divide between the two parties.

The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, not only guarantees individual rights but also provides a framework for adding and interpreting amendments. The Ninth Amendment states that the listing of specific rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people, while the Tenth Amendment reinforces that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. The Bill of Rights has been a living document, with seventeen amendments added since its ratification, reflecting the changing needs and values of American society.

A stronger federal government

The debate surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 was largely centred on the question of federal power. Federalists, who supported the Constitution, believed in a stronger federal government, arguing that it was necessary to ensure the nation's survival and that it would provide balance and prevent tyranny. They pointed to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, which had created a weak confederal government with limited authority, and emphasised the need for an energetic national government. Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist, argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, with power divided between three independent branches of government.

Supporters of a stronger federal government recognised that a weak federal government could not effectively lead the country. They tended to come from urban, mercantile states and believed that a strong central government was necessary to regulate trade, declare war, and address national concerns. Federalists also argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction, leaving many areas of the law to state and local courts.

However, Anti-Federalists, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution, feared that a stronger federal government would threaten individual liberties and states' rights. They believed that the national government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen and that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts at the expense of state and local courts. The Anti-Federalists, including small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, favoured strong state governments, a weak central government, and the strengthening of individual liberties. They demanded a more concise and unequivocal Constitution that explicitly protected the rights of the people and limited the power of the government.

The conflict between supporters and opponents of a stronger federal government continued for years, with Americans disagreeing over how much power to grant the federal government and how many representatives each state should send to Congress. The framers of the Constitution sought to address these concerns through federalism, in which power is divided between the national and state governments, with certain powers assigned exclusively to each. The Constitution also establishes three branches of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial—with each branch having the ability to limit the power of the other branches.

Explore related products

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$39 $42.5

Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

$22.22 $32

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America

$30.54 $45.99

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

U.S.A. Constitution Activity Book (Dover Kids Activity Books: U.S.A.)

$5.99

Protecting individual liberties

The protection of individual liberties has been a key concern in the formation and evolution of the US Constitution and its amendments. The Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, opposed the Constitution in its original form, arguing that it needed a bill of rights to safeguard individual liberty. They believed that the new "president" role could consolidate too much power, potentially leading to a pseudo-monarchy. As a result, they called for a means to codify individual rights.

On the other hand, the Federalists supported the Constitution, favouring a stronger federal government. They believed that the Constitution already ensured individual rights and that a bill of rights was unnecessary. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, warned that a bill of rights could be dangerous as vague definitions could lead to misinterpretation or violation of rights.

To address these concerns, James Madison, a member of the US House of Representatives, proposed amendments to the Constitution. He wanted to protect people's rights to religious freedom, a free press, and trial by jury from infringement by state governments. Madison's amendments were heavily edited by a committee before being presented to Congress. The House approved 17 amendments, 12 of which were approved by the Senate and sent to the states for ratification.

The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments, was ratified by 11 states, fulfilling Madison's goal of reconciling the Anti-Federalists to the Constitution while protecting individual liberties without changing the government structure. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, further extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people, ensuring equal protection under the law.

Today, the US Constitution and civil rights laws continue to protect individual liberties. Federal disability rights laws, for example, provide protection against discrimination, segregation, and exclusion for people with disabilities. Additionally, regardless of immigration status, individuals have guaranteed rights under the Constitution.

Checks and balances

The US Constitution divides the government into three branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, and they work together to create a separation of powers. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch can declare those laws unconstitutional.

The system of checks and balances allows each branch to check the powers of the others. For example, the President can veto legislation, but Congress can override this veto with a two-thirds majority vote. The legislative branch can also impeach members of the executive and judicial branches, and the judicial branch can review the actions of the other two branches to ensure they are constitutional.

While checks and balances are important for limiting power and improving decision-making, they can also have drawbacks. Strong checks and balances can make unilateral action more difficult and increase the risk of gridlock in the government.

Frequently asked questions