The Constitution
From Confederation to Federalism
Discussion 1
Joseph Casale
PLCY 702: The Founding Era and Constitution
April 8, 2021
1
Introduction
Different states have adopted unique modes of government that describe the division of
power and delegation of responsibilities. A good example is the federalism form of governance
in a unified political system that involves a general and central government that collaborates with
regional governments. The power is shared among institutions concerning democratic rules. This
paper seeks to discuss the Federalist versus the Antifederalist debate to determine whether the
perspectives share ideals or describe contrasting sides of a coin in conflicting ideals in a
ratification debate[ CITATION Rik17 \l 1033 ]. The impact of Judeo-Christian Democratic
principles in terms of rights, liberties, and forms of governance will also be evaluated.
Shared Ideals
The Federalists and the Anti-federalists were both focused on the future through concerns
raised in the debate that was guided by discourse and argumentation. They both sought the
standardization of the monetary and fiscal policy as well as an effective strategy in conflict
management. As a result, they were both able to mobilize opinions from the public. Additionally,
the democracy of the country was shaped[ CITATION Dav20 \l 1033 ]. This was through a
recognition of the authority that was greatly influenced by the consent of the people as well as a
Republican government which required leaders to act within the constraints of the rule of law.
Conflicting Ideals
The controversies in the early political history concerning events associated with the
Federal Convention in 1787 gave rise to two philosophies in traditional politics. The discussions
revolved around a method of ratification and the executive, judiciary, and congress election and
power. The differences in opinion could be linked to philosophers in ancient Greek-like Aristotle
and Plato. As supported by Plato, Federalism describes the importance of delegating the
decision-making responsibility to wise members of society. On the other hand, anti-federalists
2
like Aristotle believe that the process of decision-making should be a collective responsibility of
citizens. The process of ratification would give rise to proponents who were regarded as
federalists and opponents who were branded as Anti-Federalists.
Federalists
Alexander Hamilton was one federalist who supported the new constitution as a guide
towards a powerful nation. He highlighted the importance of restrictions and limits in liberty that
was a lack of capacity of humans to make decisions due to appropriate influence from
circumstances. The move to restrict liberty would therefore preserve peace through an effective
institution of government[ CITATION Mal17 \l 1033 ]. Many citizens in the community would
mandate a few individuals to guard the public will through periodic elections that gave room for
rotation to give the most qualified individual a chance to be in power.
Anti-Federalists
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were skeptical of the constitution. John DeWitt
was determined to oppose the move by an oppressive government in restricting the liberties of
people. His ideas revolved around acknowledging that welfare and richness would supposedly
arise from the federal government at the expense of human rights and citizens' liberty. This was
supported by thoughts that the people were the most valuable aspect of the community and not a
tyrannical and corrupt government[ CITATION Gat19 \l 1033 ]. Anti-federalists believed that
civil liberty could not be achieved by reducing the people's power but through a balanced
political system.
Judeo-Christian Principles
Judeo-Christian democratic principles have a significant impact on arguments concerning
rights, liberties, and governing. This is established through an ethical and religious consensus by
3
sharing texts from the Christian Bible and historical and cultural values. The tradition dictates
new moral authority in politics. Individuals are granted the liberty to act in a certain way with the
guide of duty and obligation[ CITATION Rad17 \l 1033 ]. The interpretation of James 1:19-26,
which talks about listening and doing, revolves around acting under God's authority. Society
becomes a better place when citizens understand the extent of their liberties. When limited to act
in a certain way, security is enhanced through limitations of acts like anger. Like in politics, the
leader and other public members are all responsible for their actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the division of power and delegation of responsibilities in politics
describes the mode of government. These modes share some ideals like the common interest of
the people and a great future. However, some differences exist between federalists and anti-
federalists. In Federalism, the political system is a unified entity whose power is contained
within democratic rules. Judeo-Christianity has also shown notable impacts on governments as
well as the rights and liberties of citizens.
4
Bibliography
David, Alex. Examining the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debates. . New Jersey: Enslow
Publishing, LLC, 2020.
Gatica, Obed Frausto. "Federalist and Anti-Federalist: Two Divergent Concepts of Politics."."
Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia 14, no. 1, 2019: 129-143.
Mallory, James R. "The five faces of federalism." In The Future of Canadian
Federalism/L'Avenir du federalisme canadien. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2017.
Radloff, Bernhard. "Metaphysical Judeo-Christianity and the Politics of Life in Heidegger's
Black Notebooks." ." Heidegger Studies 33, 2017: 277-302.
Riker, William H. "Federalism."." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2017:
612-620.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
