The Ratification Debate

Federalist v. Anti-Federalist

The Ratification Process

• The Framers wrote the Constitution but it had to be approved by each state before it could become law (RATIFIED)

• Special “ratifying conventions” were set up by each state

• These delegates were elected by popular vote

• Needed approval by 9 of the 13 states

Federalist

• Definition: The people who supported the Constitution

• They wanted it ratified (approved into law)

• Who:– James Madison– George Washington– John Jay– Alexander Hamilton

Anti-Federalist

• Definition: The people who did NOT support the Constitution.

• They did NOT want it ratified (approved into law).

• Who: – Thomas Jefferson (argued

for a Bill of Rights)– Patrick Henry– George Mason

1. Anti-Federalist Argument

• Large government cannot rule appropriately • Republics require active participation• Voters need to know what laws are made• Results: Distant government means…

– Tyranny (chaos since no law)– The military strictly enforcing the law

• Representatives need to know how the voters feel about particular issues

• Result: Distant government means…– Get unfair laws that the people do not want

1. Federalist Argument

• Federalism makes sure we still have state and local government

• Federalism: sharing power between state and national government

• States can communicate national law and establish fair state laws

2. Anti-Federalist Argument

• Large government means differences in opinions and therefore an inability to pass laws

• Republics work best in small communities

• Small communities share the same values

• Means there is more agreement about what the government should do

• Laws are easier to pass

2. Federalists Argument

• Larger government makes it difficult for one group to dominate government

• All people are self motivated

• Need a large government to monitor everyone’s selfishness

• Large government means more debating

• Harder for one group or state to control another group

3. Anti-Federalist Argument• Federal government

has too much power• Federal government

can tax• Supremacy clause

means that all the national laws are superior to state laws

• Supreme Court above state courts

• States cannot stop unfair laws

3. Federalist Argument

• The federal government needs this power or every state will be destroyed

• Have already had one rebellion

• Have foreign countries who do not want to trade with us

• Have foreign countries who could invade and try to colonize us

4. Anti-Federalist Argument

• The President has too much power

• President controls a permanent army

• President can pardon any crime

• President not a position for life—expected to walk away after 4 years

• Federalists themselves say all people are selfish

• He will misuse his power

4. Federalist Argument

• Have a system of checks and balances in place– Supreme Court can

declare his actions unconstitutional

– Legislative branch can impeach him

– Voters can decide not to re-elect him

5. Anti-Federalist Argument

• The Constitution does not have a Bill of Rights

• States’ Bill of Rights are not good enough since supremacy clause says national laws above state laws

5. Federalist Argument

• We do not need a Bill of Rights since there is a system to limit government power

• Laws can be vetoed, overruled, and declared unconstitutional

• States can amend the constitution

• Voters can elect new leaders

The End of the Story

• It is a 10 month debate• Compromise: States

agree to ratify the Constitution if Congress agrees to add a Bill of Rights the first year it is established

• Bill of Rights will protect states from a tyrannical federal government