The writer of federalist #51, most likely Alexander Hamilton, makes several great arguments in this document. However, there are certain flaws present in the writing. Hamilton makes a good point when he says that the ideal way of appointing the entire government would be to have the American People vote for every position. This is obviously the best choice because it emphasizes the idea of democracy. We were promised a government run by the people and that is exactly what we should get. Giving the president the power to appoint judges is practically king-like. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid. Hamilton says that voting for everyone is unrealistic goal. This is not the case in present day because of the internet. People could vote for who ever they want for any positions. Obviously, the people who don't care at all wouldn't even bother to vote and those who do care could vote in the privacy of their own homes. Although it might be a little bit more difficult than just voting for president and the legislative branch, it would be better in the long run.
Which brings me to my next point of throwing out the legislative branch. This might seem like an absurd idea at first but this would allow the power to be placed in the hands of the people where it belongs. Instead of having several House Members and Senators who represent the people vote on laws, why not just have the people do it themselves. This too could be accomplished by people voting over the internet. If the president and his advisors strongly believe that a law passed goes against the goals of the country, they can veto it for a certain amount of time. Then the veto can be overturned by receiving an overwhelming 80% of the votes. Hamilton goes against this because he does not trust the average American. The average American has the right to chose how the country runs because they are the ones that have to live here, and they are the majority.
Another objection of the Antifederalists was election by the general population. ... The Antifederalists feared that the Senate would ultimately become an aristocracy. ... The Antifederalists purposely fought to avoid this. ... The Antifederalists tried to prevent this in many different ways. ... Despite the Antifederalists' concer...
During the Constitutional Convention, delegates agreed on created fundamental changes but conflicting interests of the states led to compromises which when presented to the states, a Federalist-Antifederalist battle for ratification ensued. ... It was reciprocated with mixed ideas generally put into categories of federalist and antifederalist. ... The antifederalists thought that the Constitution was undemocratic due to the fact that they believed it was based on the much hated aristocratic government. The whole idea of the United States was not to be put under the power of a government like...
Of the Antifederalist pamphlets, two were of special importance because of their extensive distributions and widespread readership. ... Webking recently took the next step toward resolving the controversy when he suggested, in an article in the William and Mary Quarterly, that Melancton Smith, a New York Antifederalist, was the author of the letters. ... The Federal Republican Society was organized by Smith and was responsible for distributing Antifederal literature to Antifederalists in other states. ... Smith maintained contact with Antifederalists in other states while attending the conve...
This became a political division, those who wanted to keep the articles of confederation and were against the constitution became known as the antifederalist, and those who supported the constitution were federalist. Federalist wanted a strong central government, which the antifederalist feared because they didn't want a government that would become too powerful and unfair, since it didn't contain a bill of rights. ...
Miracle of the Divine? For years James Madison worked avidly to find a solution to the political and economic impasses that plagued America. State constitutions were the law of the land, and the Articles of Confederation that were approved by Congress in November of 1777 did nothing to keep Amer...
George Mason, an antifederalist, objected to the final document because of the possibility that this new government would create an aristocracy. ... Mason and many other antifederalist were opposed to the Constitution because it allowed the importation of slaves for at least another twenty years. ...
Antifederalists, people who were opposed to the adoption of the Constitution, feared that the national government would become so powerful that it would eventually destroy the state governments. ... As one can probably imagine, the Antifederalists and the Federalists had to make a compromise in order for the Constitution to succeed - the Bill of Rights compromise. ...
And so called Antifederalists had this fear that once there will be a strong central government it would take away people's freedom, rights and it would be the similar situation as it was before the revolution. ... And that's where he is wrong again because there were other classes of people like federalists, and antifederalists, people who supported slavery and people who didn"t. ...
