Fed vs. AntiFed Debate on the Constitution

The Constitution does not include a bill of rights, which is essential for protecting individuals against the power of the national government.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

The powers of the national government are separated and balanced among the three branches so no one can dominate the others.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

The Constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch so it cannot become a monarchy.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

The Constitution gives too much power to the executive branch of government. It would soon become a monarchy.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

A bill of rights is unnecessary because the powers of government are limited by the Constitution.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

It could not become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and separation of powers.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

Its powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade, currency, and defense. Experience has shown that a stronger national government is needed to deal with these problems.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

A bill of rights would give the impression that the people could only expect the protection of those rights that were actually listed.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

The new nation would be so large and diverse that people would not be able to agree on their common welfare.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist

The Constitution gives the national government too much power at the expense of the state governments.

• Federalist

• Anti-Federalist