The anti federalists criticized the constitution because they felt that it would give too much power to the federal government and take away the rights of the states and local government branches. The anti federalists argued that the constitution provided for a centralized form of government rather than a federal government form.
The Federalists papers were designed to inform the US citizens of how the government was set up. The paper attempted to demonstrate the ways that the Articles of Confederation were ill conceived.
Henry was very much a radical in all ways. He was elected a delegate of the Constitutional convention but he refused to serve. He dismissed the new constitution as a affront "to the spirit of republicanism" and the "genius of democracy". The preamble offended him because it used "we the people." He wanted to know who authorized them to speak the language of "we the people." "If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government." he wrote. His negative thinking did bring one contribution and that is because he demanded the constitution be amended to include a bill of rights. In his later years he became a Federalist. He died in 1799.
Perspective played a major role in the Declaration of Independence because of the different ways people interpret it's content. Just like with the Constitution, how there were the Federalists who adhered strictly to the Constitution word for word and the Antifederalists who thought it was up for interpretation, the Declaration of Independence is the same way. Whether you interpret it strictly or loosely determines how you view what rights the forefathers of the U.S. really wrote in for us to be granted.
dem-rep.-thought they were saving the nation from monarchy and oppression!!:Dfederalists-thought that the nation was about to be ruined by radicals!!:D
The Constitution may undergo changes with a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. The Supreme Court may not actually make changes to the Constitution, but may interpret the lines of the Constitution differently as time passes.
There is no doubt that the Anti-Federalist had some very valid arguments but in many ways, their principles seemed to be flawed. The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution was an attempt to fuse the government into one nation and for them this would undermine any authority the states had. The contention of this argument was on the basis that, "there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.
racism
By opposing the Alien and Sedition Act, and weakening the power of Congress, as well as the Powers stated in the Constitution, the Federalists believed that would weaken the Country. The Federalists also believed that Jefferson would lead the Country into war with Britian, and that he was a dangerous revolutionary, hostile to religion, who would weaken the government, and damage the economy. In many ways, history has proved them correct.
The short answer is you can't. If you try and criticize, critics their criticism will criticize you and your otherwise meaningful criticism will be so critically uninteresting that they will brush it away and continue their critical ways.
There various ways that the US Constitution and state constitutions are similar. The two main ways are the fact that they both define governments and allow for amendments.
drugs are classified as anti biotics, anti coagulantes, anti helmentics, anti diuretics, anti hypertensives
Five
There are three main ways that the US Constitution can be adapted to the changes that take place within the country. These ways include amending it, interpretation, and adding to it.
yes
The Federalists papers were designed to inform the US citizens of how the government was set up. The paper attempted to demonstrate the ways that the Articles of Confederation were ill conceived.
Compare & Contrast:Iroquois Constitution & U.S. Constitution
The constitution