Menu Close

How did the Anti-Federalists present their arguments against ratification?

How did the Anti-Federalists present their arguments against ratification?

In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states.

What presented arguments for the ratification of the Constitution?

Federalist Papers: The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

What were the Anti-Federalists arguments?

Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments. Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.

What was the ratification debate?

Many of the debates about the proper scope of government power that had gone on inside Independence Hall continued on in the states. Those who argued that the Constitution should be ratified became known as Federalists. People who opposed the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists.

Which argument would be likely to be made by a federalist?

Which argument would be likely to be made by a Federalist? The federal courts should have the power of judicial review.

How would a federalist most likely respond to the anti federalist argument?

How would a federalist most likely respond to the anti federalist argument that Government is the enemy of liberty? A strong government is necessary in order to secure liberty.

Which of these major arguments did the Anti-Federalists offer in opposition to ratification of the Constitution?

The Anti-Federalist’s offer in opposition to ‘ratification of the Constitution’ was set on their belief that the constitution needed a bill of rights. Their argument was that the constitution was not powerful with the laws and judiciary and would result in a situation where the judiciary would become out of control.