Which of the following is an accurate comparison of the arguments made in the Federalist 10 and Brutus 1?
|
Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of
government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened. Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution
were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights. Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when
the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the
general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of
rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic
rights. (F) Federalist Essays/Speeches (F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 (F) James Wilson Speech in the State House Yard, Philadelphia, 6 October 1787 Essential in an Original Contract(AF)
An Old Whig IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 27 October 1787 General Arguments(F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 22 November
1787 Good Government Protects Rights(F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788 Ineffective to List Rights(F)
A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 23 November 1787 Jury Trials Need Protection(AF)
Cincinnatus II: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 8 November 1787 Limits Government(F)
Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788 Limiting Powers More Important than Bill of Rights(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787 Necessary to Check Government Power(AF) Timoleon, New York Journal, 1 November 1787, Extraordinary Necessary to Prevent Tyranny(F) Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788 Necessary Statement of First Principles(AF) A True Friend, Richmond, 6 December 1787 Not Necessary to List Rights(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania State House Yard, 6 October 1787 Not Necessary to List Natural Rights(F) Remarker, Boston Independent Chronicle, 27 December 1787 Only Needed in Monarchial Governments(F) Marcus I, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal, 20 February 1788 Partial List in the Constitution is Incomplete(AF) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787 Proposed/Recommended Bills of RightsRichard Henry Lee’s Proposed Amendments in Cogeress, 27 September 1787 Representation Protects Rights(F) Letter from Roger Sherman, New Haven, 8 December 1787 Supremacy Clause a Threat to Individual Rights(AF) The Impartial Examiner I, Virginia Independent Chronicle,
20 February 1788 Treaty Powers a Threat to Individual Rights(F) James Madison Speech in the Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 What is the main argument of Brutus 1?Brutus 1 argued that federal power was bad and that the Constitution gives too much power to the federal government.
Which of the following is an accurate comparison of federalists and AntiWhich of the following is an accurate comparison of Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on government? Federalists believed a large, diverse republic ensured the best protection of individual freedoms, while anti-feds believed only a small republic could insure protection of individual freedoms.
What was the main argument expressed in Federalist Paper 10?What is the main idea of Federalist Paper 10? The main point of Federalist Paper 10 is that a strong federal government can protect liberty because it guards against the dangers of control by a narrow interest. Madison also called it "faction."
What are Madison's main arguments in Federalist No 10?10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.
|
