Federalists & Anti-Federalists The Road to Ratification: What was all the fuss about?

What they agreed on: Republicanism Federalism* Separation of Powers Representation, consent of governed, delegated power But who should represent the public? Federalism* Power divided between states and national government But how much power for each? Separation of Powers L, E, J in different hands, but not completely Total separation? Or checks and balances?

The Purpose of the Federalist Papers: To promote ratification To show the intentions of the framers (they are awesome historical documents for that purpose)

Madison: Federalist No. 10 Factions Natural, but controllable by shared institutional power (branches) Liberty is protected by fragmented power in a large republic Majority rule would be limited by: Electoral College US Senator elections (changed by 17th Amendment) Longer, staggered terms for Senators Independent, life term serving judiciary Representative democracy

Madison: Federalist No. 51 Checks and Balances “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” Each branch can “check” another in several ways Pres can veto laws (E checks L) Congress can override vetoes (L checks E) Courts can test the constitutionality of law (J checks L & E) Congress can amend the Constitution (L checks J) Pres can appointment justices (E checks J) And so on: Page 40 in text

So why the conflict? Federalists Anti-Federalists National government had checks and balances which would restrain power Rights were protected enough Strong national government would not threaten liberties National government was “sovereign” Bill of Rights would protect people from abusive power Small republics are more responsive States would better serve the people’s interests States were “sovereign” *The conflict was mostly about the scope of power between “nation” and “state”

Hamilton and Smith Read your handout What was Hamilton’s position on representation? What was Smith’s position? What arguments do they make to support their claims? Based on the those arguments, what kind of people do you think were Federalists? Anti-Federalists? Which side would you have supported? Are these issues still debated today?

Happy with the representation outline in the Constitution Hamilton: Federalist Smith: Anti-Federalist Happy with the representation outline in the Constitution Representative Democracy Elites; slight distrust of the common man Not happy with how representation would work Direct Democracy Believed in the decency of the common man

Hamilton: Federalist No. 28 “If the people’s rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress”

Summary: The Anti-Federalists lost the battle, but won the war. The first 10 amendments were added by 1791. The B-o-r addressed many of the Anti-Federalists’ concerns The B-O-R limits majority rule

Which government (state or federal)? Which government would serve the interests of people better when considering: National healthcare? Same sex marriage? Abortion? Immigration? Off shore drilling?