Advocates of the American Constitution Essay Example for Free

Advocates of the American Constitution Essay Obtained a strategic advantage over those who opposed it by taking up the name Federalist for themselves and by identifying the adversaries Anti-Federalists. Federalists supported state rule and disagreed with a central national government. By holding the title Federalist, Hamilton and other authors got an additional advantage for their position and got around an extreme conflict over the issue of state versus national power. They emerged as advocates of states rights and this idea was clearly explained in The Federalist Papers, yet they were also evidently advocating for a strong national government. The essays were signed â€Å"Publius† after Publius Valerius who was the state builder and who rebuild the Roman republic following the removing from power Romes last king called Tarquin. Plutarch measured Publius favorably against Solon who was Greeces law giver. And at that instant a modern Publius would have helped erect the new American republic. By opting for a name like Publius, the authors of the Federalist were following a practice which was common among the eighteenth-century writers. The writers used to publish a combined work under a fictitious name instead of a byline. If Hamilton, Madison, and Jay had revealed their identity in The Federalist Papers then they would have been known as advocates of specific positions instead of being recognized by their arguments, and also this would have become a part of the argument over the Constitution. Further more; choosing secrecy was also because of the enmity between Hamilton and George Clinton the New York Governor. Interestingly Hamilton was the single New York ambassador who signed the Constitution. On the contrary, Clinton was an Anti-Federalist who was heading a state where people opposing the new Constitution were in majority. Therefore, opting for Publius was somewhat an effort to shift the discussion away from the personal bitterness between Hamilton and Clinton. As the need of unification has been signified, and the Articles of Confederation had arrears, it was explained by the Publius that a strong republican government was shaped by the Constitution, yet checks and balances controlled it. This type of government, which was strong and had checks, would maintain freedom and assets, and bring back respect for America overseas. Although an un-amended Constitution was opposed by two thirds of the nominated representatives at the New York conventions, the provision of other political writers was done by the Publius. At the same time as replying to explicit Anti-federalist arguments, The Federalist presented an integrated theory of the philosophies upon which the new Constitution was based. History, experience, and reason were the bases of this philosophical foundation, and the long existence of the republican government was verified by this foundation in relation with the examples of failed governments in the past, which were unable to survive. Countering the belief, which is often ascribed to Montesquieu, that republics could stay alive only in small areas taken by identical inhabitants, Madison in The Federalist no. 10 argued that republics could flourish best in large areas where different groups constantly competed with each other. During the constant struggles of these groups the independence of both majorities and minorities would be preserved. This republic would provide better leadership by expanding the group of qualified persons from which delegates would be selected. The Federalist no. 10 by Madison, as mentioned before, was very influential in U. S. political history and philosophy. The separation of the three branches of the federal government had to be done, as the role of a check upon the other was played by each branch in the government Although these three branches were not completely separate the practicality of each division was assured by assigning it enough power to protect itself against the actions of the other division. Furthermore, if any branch exceeded its role as defined in the Constitution then the other branches could proceed by checking on the misuse of power. Moreover, it was also stated by the Publius that freedom was protected by the new Constitution by the provision of power to the central, as well as, state governments. Specific areas of power and simultaneous powers were determined by this new federalism. It was mentioned by the Publius that a central government with restricted powers was created by the Constitution. In this regard, identification of the Congress’s, as well as, President’s powers was also done. The people and the states were left with all the remaining powers completely. If the legislative body dishonored their power and authority bestowed on them then the people could substitute them during the regular elections ensured by the Constitution. On the other hand, if the President or the judiciary breached the confidence of the people, Congress could prosecute them and if convicted Congress could remove them from their designation and from their office. The debate that was going on was based on vocabulary that is circling around the gist of the thoughts constitutive of republican dialogue. They are liberty, tyranny, virtue, corruption, representation, and even republic. It has been said before, along with rationalizations, that the new created American republic was the combined efforts of Federalists and Anti-federalists. A new political system was created not by ordains of a single lawmaker but instead was fought to bring it to life and was constructed jointly by having a powerful discussion between supporters of different political affiliations and theoretical standpoints. â€Å"The ratification debate produced an enormous outpouring of newspaper articles, pamphlets, sermons, and tracts, both for and against the new design. Of the former The Federalist is by far the most famous and certainly the most widely read in our day. The Anti-federalist case against the Constitution, by contrast, is today rarely read or even remembered. Once described (and dismissed) as mere nay-Sayers and men of little faith, the Anti-federalists are now more often regarded as the other founders. †