Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $14.00 USD. Show How does it work?
journal article Another Explanation for the Senate: The Anti-Federalists, John Adams, and the Natural AristocracyPolity Vol. 29, No. 2 (Winter, 1996) , pp. 247-271 (25 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press https://doi.org/10.2307/3235302 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3235302 Read and download Log in through your school or library Purchase article $14.00 - Download now and later Abstract For both the Anti-Federalists and John Adams, the Senate was created not as a compromise between large and small states but as a mechanism for maintaining a balance between the two great orders of society, the "natural aristocracy" (the few) and the people (the many). Both regarded identifying and controlling the natural aristocracy as one of the principle tasks of republican constitutionalism, and believed this would be accomplished best by dividing the legislature into an aristocratic and a popular house so the latter could check the former. Their reasoning provides a counterpoint to the Madisonian emphasis on checks and balances among the three branches of government and reveals a deeper appreciation of how the Founders sought to preserve a republican form of government. Journal Information Current issues are available on the Chicago Journals website: Read the latest issue. Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association, published quarterly since 1968. As a general-interest journal, it has always sought to publish work of interest to a broad range of political scientists — work that is lively, provocative, and readable. Polity is devoted to the premise that political knowledge advances through scholarly communication across subdiscipline boundaries. Publisher Information Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you! One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments. The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation’s liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens’ rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured. Today, it appears that the government established by the Constitution is an improvement from that which was established by the Articles of Confederation. At the time however, the Constitution was merely an experiment. Forget what you now know about the success Constitution. Considering its unprecedented nature and the fear that a strong national government would be a threat to personal liberty, would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? Learn more about Federalist papers. How did AntiThe Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution. Their principal argument was that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and took away too many powers of the states.
What did George Mason believe as an antiAs an Anti-Federalist, he believed that a strong national government without a bill of rights would undermine individual freedom. Mason also significantly contributed to other documents that advanced the development of the First Amendment.
Why did antiThe first in the long line of states' rights advocates, they feared the authority of a single national government, upper-class dominance, inadequate separation of powers, and loss of immediate control over local affairs. The Anti-Federalists were strong in the key states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.
What did George Mason say about the Bill of Rights?As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Mason refused to sign the Constitution and lobbied against its ratification in his home state, believing the document as drafted gave too much power to a central government and was incomplete absent a bill of rights to guarantee individual liberty.
|
According to anti-federalist george mason, why would state rights no longer be protected?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 nguoilontuoi Inc.
