The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers
List six points made by the Federalist author in support of the “checks and balances” system in
the constitution.
1. Each branch should be a separate entity, in order to do this each branch should not have too
much power in deciding the members of the other two. This would probably mean that
citizens would have the power to select the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. There
is a major flaw in this reasoning because the ordinary person does not know what qualities a
judge should have. These qualities include that they are free of pressure, because this affects
how they rule. However, if judges are appointed for life by the President, they will not be
dependent on the authority (president and congress) conferring them.
2. Each branch has specific powers that can counteract the actions of other branches from
becoming too powerful. As Madison explains, the great security against a gradual
concentration of several powers in a single branch, is the ability to resist the wrong doings of
other branches. This is essentially the concept of checks and balances.The ambitions of the
members of the branch should correlate with the independence of the branch they are part of.
The reason the constitution puts checks and balances on the branches is because of man’s
nature to take away power. The concept of checks and balances will put an end to this
because each branch can check the other branch to limit the power of it.
3. Dividing the power of the legislative branch is beneficial in limiting the power of the branch
itself and the executive branch. Madison’s reasoning for this is because in a republic branch
of government, the legislative branch is the most powerful because in a republic, power
comes from the people. This is essential to divide the branch into two parts to limit the
power of the branch as a whole to prevent usurpations. Through dividing up the branch, it
means different elections and principles of actions. In relation to the executive branch, the
legislative branch is the executive branch’s natural defense. Through dividing up the
legislative branch, it also limits the power of the executive branch as well.
4. The federal government is divided into two parts and then divided into even more smaller
parts, which can check on each other. At the same time different governments will control
each other, but will also control itself; hence, establishing a sense of double security.
5. The purpose of Government is to prevent anarchy. Government should be able to protect the
society from its rulers, but it should also be able to protect society from itself. In a society
there is usually a majority and minority. Madison states that if “…a majority be united by a
common interest, the rights of the minorities will be insecure”(Federalist 51). However,
under the Constitution, society is divided into many different groups who have different
views and motives to prevent one group to dominate and threaten a smaller group.
6. Self government is a good solution for a large country with many different types of groups.
Since there are so many groups, there would tend to not be a majority. Therefore, the fact of
having a large diverse country checks the idea of having a majority and a minority which
could cause mass anarchy. The U.S Constitution according to Madison modifies the idea of
federalism enough to suit the practical needs of the country.
List six points made by the Anti-Federalist author questioning the validity of the checks and
balances system.
1. Congress can set the time and place for elections to best suit them. The author points out that
Congress can set elections in places where people are more loyal to them, therefore they
have a higher chance of getting elected again. This allows the people that the President and
the Senate approve from the House of Representatives to return. The author also makes a
satirical comment about how the framers checked congress by allowing them to have this
power. The author satirically states that this power is “…most excellently adapted to
counterbalance the great and apparently dangerous concessions made to the plebeians in the
first and second sections”(Anti-Federalist 51). This can also not be ruled unconstitutional
because the Constitution gives them the power to do it. This is a scenario allows the
legislative branch (already the strongest branch) to become even stronger, instead of
weakening it.
2. Congress has the power to tax, which is an extremely unsettling to the author. Already, the
author had pointed out that Congress had too much power in holding elections, but the power
to lay taxes is too much. The author states satirically that Congress collects money “…so that
they shall never be at a loss for money while there is a shilling on the continent, for their
power to procure it is as extensive as their desires”(Anti-Federalist 51). This pretty much
means that Congress will never be at the loss of money, while the continent itself is deprived
of it. He also points out that gets rid of the reliance of state legislatures because for “….every
tax which they may lay, will be deemed by congress an infringement upon the federal
constitution” (Anti-Federalist 51).
3. The author also points out that the Constitution and the National Government is always
superior to the State level. This will cause the national law to take over all the inferior laws
of the state laws. Congress makes the laws, therefore giving it even more power (which
makes an already extremely strong branch even stronger).
4. Congress also has the power to raise and support armies. The author makes satirical
comments about the people that make up these armies are a species of animals. They resign
their natural rights to the government, and give their lives for their superiors. They are
“….naturally jealous and envious of those possessed by others”(Anti-Federalist 51). This
makes them the proper instruments in government to deprive the citizens of their rights. The
author believes that these armies will assist tax collectors, imposts, and raising revenue. This
is because tax money is the money that supports them. This is similar to how the British use
to use soldiers to impose taxes.
5. The author notes that that the convention happily worded the Constitution to cause“…every
part of [it] [to] [bear] double meaning, or no meaning at all”(Anti-Federalist 51). This means
that the Constitution, instead of limiting each power, either has no effect on it or makes it
even stronger. This defies the meaning of checks and balances and pretty much makes each
branch even more unequal than they already are. An example of this is the amplification of
the power of Congress and the waning power of the state legislature.
6. The mode of electing President is also meant to make him obedient to the legislative branch.
This is because the electors choose him, rather than the people. As the author explains, the
highest of the votes, however “… cannot be president, without he has the majority of all the
electors” (Anti-Federalist 51). If a majority cannot be reached, Congress decides the
President out of the top five voted. According to this, “…the congress will always have the
making of the president after the first election” (Anti-Federalist 51). The President will
usually please Congress in order to get re elected or not impeached. This is another major
power given to a branch that is so powerful, that it needs to be divided.
Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers Essay
We the people or we not the people, was the question asked during the time of 1787.
Today, the Constitution is one of the most influential and important documents in the course of
human history. It has shaped up to be not only the shortest constitution of the world, but also the
least amended. Of course, during the time the Constitution written, no one knew this. The U.S
had just became an independent country, the Articles which had ruled it before had become
inefficient. In the hot summer of 1787 many of the nation’s influential men had come to
overwrite the Articles and create a Constitution that will end all past evil. Nine of the thirteen
states will have to assent to the Constitution, they succeed in this but two states that hold pretty
much half of the nation’s population refuse to ratify the Constitution. In the newspaper of these
states, there were a flurry of papers known as the federalist and anti federalist papers that show
support and disgust in the Constitution. The federalist papers supported the constitution, while
the anti-federalist papers opposed it. Two noteworthy examples of these include Federalist paper
51 and Anti-federalist paper 51. These documents deal with the ideas of separation of powers
and checks and balances. I personally agree with the Anti-Federalist side respectfully, even
though the constitution has indeed worked today. There are multiple flaws of the Constitution
that I will discuss throughout this essay. One of these flaws deal with the overwhelming power
of the legislative branch even though it was supposedly “checked”.
The Constitution states the legislative branch should be divided into two parts to limit the
power. This is because the legislative branch is the strongest branch of government in a republic
from of government. Although this does remedy some overflow of power in the legislative
branch, the constitution provides other powers to the legislative branch that brings it back up to
its original level. Such powers include the power of taxation, holding elections, and supporting
armies. In this section, we will deal with the power of holding elections. The power of holding
elections allows congress to decide the time and place to hold an election to best suit their needs.
For example, congress can assign a location for an election in a place where people are more
loyal to them, thus having a higher chance of being elected again. This is extremely useful in
both the executive and legislative branch because they can manipulate the election so that the
people congress and the president approves from the House of Representatives will get re-elected
again. Another way the legislative branch is strengthened by elections is by the presidential
election. The popular vote does not elect president, there has to be a majority decision in the
electors. If there is not a majority in the electors, congress gets to decide who becomes president
out of the top five votes. The President chosen will probably please congress to get either reelected or not impeached. The legislative branch is not only in charge of its elections, but is also
in charge of pretty much who becomes president if there isn’t a majority. As you can see from
this, the checks placed on the legislative branch may not be enough to sustain the multiple
powers of elections given to it by the Constitution. Another flaw in checks and balances in the
legislative branch includes taxes.
Taxes were essentially what started the war between the U.S and England during the
Revolutionary War. According to the constitution, congress gets to decide taxes. This is a huge
problem because not only are the state powers to tax given to the federal government, but it also
takes money from a post war country that is slowly rebuilding. The author explains satirically
that Congress collects money “…so that they shall never be at a loss for money while there is a
shilling on the continent, for their power to procure it is as extensive as their desires”(AntiFederalist 51). This pretty much means that Congress will never be at the loss of money, while
the continent itself is deprived of it. This causes people to be more interested in working to pay
their taxes, rather than paying attention to the nation’s politics. Another call back to America’s
conflict with England in relation with taxes are soldiers. Congress also has the power to support
an army. In order to maintain collecting taxes, the author of Anti-Federalist 51 infers that
congress might also make their armies assist with this process. This is a direct call back to the
conflict leading up the Revolutionary War where the British soldiers imposed and collected
taxes. These two powers are also further strengthened by the Constitution’s Supremacy clause
which declares national law superior to state law. Congress makes the laws, therefore giving it
even more power; hence, contradicting the purpose of checks and balances. However, federalists
claim that when different governments control each other alongside controlling itself, it will
establish a sense of double security,
Madison claims that the Constitution provides a double security in government make it
more secure. Although this could theoretically work, the legislative branch is much too strong.
The powers given to already the strongest branch of a republic government can manipulate this
system in a way where they control everything. If they control the President, who appoints the
judges, they theoretically control all three branches of government. No checks and balances can
be imposed, if the other two branches don’t execute it. This destroys the sense of double
security because the legislative branch (which can possibly control the national government) is
also backed up by the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. As I have already discussed, this
gives the National Government superiority over the states. With this ability, if the legislative
branch controlled the national government, it could destroy the concept of federalism as a
whole.
As we all know, the U.S Constitution has been extremely successful and efficient today.
It is the least amended, as well as the shortest constitution in the world. But, it is also important
to realize the many flaws of it at the time. Flaws, which gave Congress many powers that pretty
much defies the purpose of checks and balances. These powers may of allowed Congress to
become somewhat a dictator. Considering all of this, we should also all be thankful that the
Constitution has succeeded today. It has definitely worked in supporting our nation throughout
its two hundred plus years of history. Although it has had multiple flaws at the start, the Bill of
Rights and other amendments helped fix these issues enough from preventing them from
becoming serious problems. Either way, Federalist or Anti-Federalist, they were both extremely
important to the success of the Constitution. If you were a Federalist you predicted that the
Constitution will succeed (which it did) and supported it. If you were an Anti-Federalist, you
complained about the flaws in the Constitution, which added a Bill of Rights that has helped to
guarantee our rights and fix these issues. The U.S Constitution is a brilliant work with lots of
interesting history behind it to back it up, and it will remain so for the many years to come.