Constitution Arguments by Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Great Compromise that was achieved through the balance of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan created the legislative system of the Constitution. The role of Federalism is essential to mention, as it indicates a relationship between the states and the national government. In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution would make governmental authority stronger because it would make the President responsible for enforcing the law and making commands to the military. Congress would levy taxes, regulate commerce, borrow money, and deal with external affairs, thus promoting “general welfare.”

However, reaching balance was complicated due to the difference in views of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While one group provided arguments in support of the Constitution, the other argued against it. Federalists were the ones who favored the ratification of the Constitution, while Anti-Federalists opposed it. The Federalists argued against the Articles of Confederation, while Anti-Federalists supported the House of Representatives with significant power. The latter agreed upon the fact that the Constitution would not be perfect but was better compared to other suggestions.

However, the Federalists argued in support of a point associated with the Constitution, which was the lack of a Bill of Rights, by pointing out that the existing protections were reliable enough and that Congress would always have the opportunity to propose Amendments. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, suggested that such a state of affairs would result in a dangerously strong national government. The lack of a Bill of Rights, in their view, was a major weakness and should have been included in the Constitution. Eventually, Federalists’ arguments prevailed, which prompted the establishment of the document.