Feds vs AntiFeds - Key Arguments

Argued that the states SHOULD ratify the newly proposed Constitution.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the STATES should remain supreme, and not be forced to submit to any law or action of a central government.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that more powers should be given to the national/central government, to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued for the need of a national bill of rights to protect citizens from the powers of national government.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the "necessary and proper" and "supremacy" clauses would allow the national government to grow beyond its constitutional limits, and overtake/eliminate state governments.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the "necessary and proper" and "supremacy" clauses were necessary for a more efficient national government that could correct for the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the newly proposed Constitution should NOT be ratified, preferring simply to amend the Articles of Confederation and preserve state power.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued in favor of the supremacy of the national government created by the newly proposed Constitution, to resolve conflicts that grew between states under the Articles of Confederation.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the separation of powers, checks and balances, and other limits on power built into the newly proposed Constitution were enough to restrain the national government, and that adding a bill of rights might actually be dangerous.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists

Argued that the executive and judicial branches created by the newly proposed Constitution would have too much power, with little or no accountability to the people.

• Federalists

• AntiFederalists