Federalist vs. Anti-federalist
The introduction of a new constitution in the United States set the stage for contrasting parties mainly the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalist championed for the adoption of the new constitution with a federal form of governance. Anti- federalists on the other hand were against the ratification of the new constitution without amendments. The anti federalists perspective was mainly highlighted in the centinel papers which were a series of papers written by anti federalist movement writers raising ideas against the ratification of the new constitution. James Madison's "federalist paper no 10" is the main document representing the federalists thoughts. This article mainly puts forward the benefits of the constitution and consequently giving reasons why the American society cannot operate under the old constitution (Alexander 240).
Both federalists and anti federalist, though using opposing views, used identical topics in supporting their views .To form a system of checks and balances two branches in the legislature were proposed; that is the senate and the house of representatives. The anti-federalists see this system of checks and balances as weakly constituted, unbalanced and as composed of people with identical qualities thus faulting its ability to check on the government.
Robert Yates in ‘Brutus' firstly seems to approve the idea of having two branches of the legislature in his no 63 of the Anti federalist papers … "Yet I approve of two branches…".He supports this by acknowledging that the senate will probably be supporting the state governments and provide stable legislation. He consequently views this division as necessary in checking the discipline and conduct of public office holders. James Madison in support of the federalists also highlights the need for a two chambered legislature in his sixty second paper of the federalists' perspective (Alexander 270).
The main bone of contention between these two opposing views and which forms the basis of this paper is particularly on the organization and powers of the senate and the House of Representatives as a system of checks and balances to the government. The debate begins with an argument on the composition and rules set out to elect the members of these two houses forming the congress. The constitution sets out designated rules and qualifications for the election of representatives mainly to people above twenty five years of age, inhabitants of the state and those who have been citizens of the states for a minimum period of seven years (Gary 78).
According to Yates an anti federalist, this is broader a basis to elect members of the lower house. People qualified by the constitution for election may hinder the system of checks and balances in the sense that they may not posses other desired qualities critical in creating a group of representatives for a better system of checks and balances. Additionally, members of the state have been limited on the choice of representatives they can choose further narrowing the spectrum of checks and balances in the new constitution (Main 206).
On the organization of the senate, Yates further brings forward arguments concerning the shortcomings in the senate in the federalists' championed constitution. The idea of having equal number of state representatives in the constitution raises a question as to whether these states have identical interests and qualities to warrant such identical representation. Senate members from the states are not elected according to numbers in the constitution.
James Madison in his sixty second federalists' paper published in 1788, puts forward a clear summary on the qualifications and appointment of senators ,their number, term of service as well as the powers vested on the senate. The constitution proposes a different set of qualifications on the appointment of senate representatives from those of the lower house in the form of a more advanced age and a longer citizenry period. This is because the senate is a higher house than the House of Representatives and thus more trust, stable character and vast of information is required on the part of those elected to fill these posts compared to the House of Representatives.
Concerning the equality of representation in the senate, Madison views this as promoting proportionality in the government for every district in the nation. Laws and resolutions would be passed with the agreement of a majority of people and of the states to provide a good system of checks and balances (Gary 89).
The period of time the senators were to remain in office as compared to the members of the House of Representatives creates a division between this two opposing camps. The federalists support need for an extended term of service by arguing that with this house being responsible for providing checks and balances to the national government it should hold its authority by considerable duration of tenure. The need for the senate to verse itself with principles of legislation also calls for the appointment of its members on a longer period of time.
The anti federalists to the contrary view this as plan of the new constitution to ensure that the senate continues to champion for the interests of the aristocrats in the society as opposed to the ‘democratic' house of representatives .longer periods of service by the senate will most likely alienate the senators from championing for the interests of those they represent according to the anti federalists (Main 140).
Rotation was ignored by the federalists whereas the anti federalists sought it to ensure that holders of office will not remain in office for the rest of their lives according to Richard Henry Lee. Robert Yates provides a remedy for this in the following quote, "to prevent this inconvenience ,I conceive it would be wise to determine, that a senator should not be eligible after he had served for the period assigned by the constitution for a certain number of years; perhaps three would be sufficient".
Frequent elections according to the ant federalists' papers particularly paper no 63 by Robert Yates ensures that people acquire extensive political knowledge as well as keeping constantly alive the attention of the electors and the elected for a more efficient system of checks and balance. In relation to this, the federalists and the new constitution doesn't provide room for the recall of senate representatives and this is seen by the anti federalists as a way of creating more sense of independence on the representatives thus making them less responsible.
On the powers of the senate in the new constitution, the anti federalists view it as being vested with judicial, executive and legislative powers thus questioning the system of checks and balances under the new constitution. The senate is removed from the people by the virtue of its being elected by the legislature, its sole power to impeach, promiscuity to the vice president, the right of altering or amending money bills represents this form of high power given to the senate as a branch of the legislature in comparison with the House of Representatives (main 345).
Both federalists and anti federalist, though using opposing views, used identical topics in supporting their views .To form a system of checks and balances two branches in the legislature were proposed; that is the senate and the house of representatives. The anti-federalists see this system of checks and balances as weakly constituted, unbalanced and as composed of people with identical qualities thus faulting its ability to check on the government.
Robert Yates in ‘Brutus' firstly seems to approve the idea of having two branches of the legislature in his no 63 of the Anti federalist papers … "Yet I approve of two branches…".He supports this by acknowledging that the senate will probably be supporting the state governments and provide stable legislation. He consequently views this division as necessary in checking the discipline and conduct of public office holders. James Madison in support of the federalists also highlights the need for a two chambered legislature in his sixty second paper of the federalists' perspective (Alexander 270).
The main bone of contention between these two opposing views and which forms the basis of this paper is particularly on the organization and powers of the senate and the House of Representatives as a system of checks and balances to the government. The debate begins with an argument on the composition and rules set out to elect the members of these two houses forming the congress. The constitution sets out designated rules and qualifications for the election of representatives mainly to people above twenty five years of age, inhabitants of the state and those who have been citizens of the states for a minimum period of seven years (Gary 78).
According to Yates an anti federalist, this is broader a basis to elect members of the lower house. People qualified by the constitution for election may hinder the system of checks and balances in the sense that they may not posses other desired qualities critical in creating a group of representatives for a better system of checks and balances. Additionally, members of the state have been limited on the choice of representatives they can choose further narrowing the spectrum of checks and balances in the new constitution (Main 206).
On the organization of the senate, Yates further brings forward arguments concerning the shortcomings in the senate in the federalists' championed constitution. The idea of having equal number of state representatives in the constitution raises a question as to whether these states have identical interests and qualities to warrant such identical representation. Senate members from the states are not elected according to numbers in the constitution.
James Madison in his sixty second federalists' paper published in 1788, puts forward a clear summary on the qualifications and appointment of senators ,their number, term of service as well as the powers vested on the senate. The constitution proposes a different set of qualifications on the appointment of senate representatives from those of the lower house in the form of a more advanced age and a longer citizenry period. This is because the senate is a higher house than the House of Representatives and thus more trust, stable character and vast of information is required on the part of those elected to fill these posts compared to the House of Representatives.
Concerning the equality of representation in the senate, Madison views this as promoting proportionality in the government for every district in the nation. Laws and resolutions would be passed with the agreement of a majority of people and of the states to provide a good system of checks and balances (Gary 89).
The period of time the senators were to remain in office as compared to the members of the House of Representatives creates a division between this two opposing camps. The federalists support need for an extended term of service by arguing that with this house being responsible for providing checks and balances to the national government it should hold its authority by considerable duration of tenure. The need for the senate to verse itself with principles of legislation also calls for the appointment of its members on a longer period of time.
The anti federalists to the contrary view this as plan of the new constitution to ensure that the senate continues to champion for the interests of the aristocrats in the society as opposed to the ‘democratic' house of representatives .longer periods of service by the senate will most likely alienate the senators from championing for the interests of those they represent according to the anti federalists (Main 140).
Rotation was ignored by the federalists whereas the anti federalists sought it to ensure that holders of office will not remain in office for the rest of their lives according to Richard Henry Lee. Robert Yates provides a remedy for this in the following quote, "to prevent this inconvenience ,I conceive it would be wise to determine, that a senator should not be eligible after he had served for the period assigned by the constitution for a certain number of years; perhaps three would be sufficient".
Frequent elections according to the ant federalists' papers particularly paper no 63 by Robert Yates ensures that people acquire extensive political knowledge as well as keeping constantly alive the attention of the electors and the elected for a more efficient system of checks and balance. In relation to this, the federalists and the new constitution doesn't provide room for the recall of senate representatives and this is seen by the anti federalists as a way of creating more sense of independence on the representatives thus making them less responsible.
On the powers of the senate in the new constitution, the anti federalists view it as being vested with judicial, executive and legislative powers thus questioning the system of checks and balances under the new constitution. The senate is removed from the people by the virtue of its being elected by the legislature, its sole power to impeach, promiscuity to the vice president, the right of altering or amending money bills represents this form of high power given to the senate as a branch of the legislature in comparison with the House of Representatives (main 345).
Source...