The Federalist Argument and the Bill of Rights

Paper Summary:

The Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. The length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the Constitution was approved by the first congressional convention, to June of 1788, when Virginia was the first to ratify the Constitution of the United States. This paper shows, however, that the concepts, ideas, and standards that were set forth by both the Anti-federalists and the Federalists, as well as other, more moderate politicians, are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States. The paper shows how, most notably, the Bill of Rights is a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides, but this can be seen elsewhere in other foundational documentation as well.

From the Paper:

"Federalists, on the contrary, believed that a weak central government would be ineffective and useless in times of national need and could not stand independently to make decisions about national needs if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet, most importantly the anti-federalists were asking for careful examinations of not only motive but fact and future when decisions so serious were to be made."

More papers on The Federalist Argument and the Bill of Rights:

• Argumentative Essay # 787 : "Should the U.S .Constitution be Ratified?"
• Essay # 55005 : "Australia and a Bill of Rights"
• Comparison Essay # 122714 : "Comparison of Two Journal Articles about Art: "The Art of the Counter Reformation" and "The Reform of Trent and Its Effect on Music."

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: