Question

HOW DOES HENRY EXEMPLIFY THE ATTITUDES OF AN ANTI-FEDERALIST IN HIS SPEECH? HOW DOES MADISON REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF FEDERALISTS? IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT ARE HENRY'S STRONGEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE NEW CONSTITUTION? WHAT ARE MADISON'S BEST ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT?

Answer 1

A sincere Anti-Federalist, Henry disagreed with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which he felt put too much strength in the hands of a national government. His influence assisted create the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed personal independence and set boundaries on the government's power.Madison's views and beliefs on federalism are mainly positive because they attract here to ask these and related questions. The intentions are not difficult to find. First as we shall see Madison's idea of ​​federalism changed extensively as soon as the new constitution came into power. Moreover, even after this initial change, he was not totally consistent in his views or in the answers to his inherently significant questions about federalism. In addition, at various phases of his career he had to modify to the tensions between theory and practice.When the new constitution was sent to Virginia for permission in 1788, Henry was one of its most outspoken critics. Henry wondered why the Bill of Rights was not involved in the Constitution. Henry believed that the absence of the Bill of Rights was part of an experiment to seize power. The arguments of Henry and other anti-federalists guaranteed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution once the document was authorized by James Madison, the leader of the Virginia Federalists. The criticisms that led Patrick Henry were that there were no bill of rights, bringing the government too strong, there was no comment of God, states couldn't print money and ratification system was too easy.The Federalist No.10 written by James Madison, in which he set forth the classic estimation of the republic. Opponentargued that the United States was too vast, and had too many groups, or "factions, to be ruled democratically by a single administration. Madison admitted that there were in fact many groups in the country, and he lamented that they often appeared to be at each other's throats. Under classic constitutional theory, majoritarian law should govern, and at the cost of minority rights.Madison argued that the republican remedy exemplified in the Constitution allowed the various factions adequate room to express their views and to attempt to impact on the government. Instead of the majority putting down minorities, the different concerns would negotiate their differences, thus arriving at an explanation in which the majority would rule but with due care and regard given to minorities. The very number of factions wouanyonelude any one from practising tyrannical control over the rest. And the medium in which this provides and take would happen would be politics, the art of governing.