payment page
How did the tradition versus change debate play out in new federal court system?
Voices favoring the retention of standing traditions remained strong in the debates over the creation of a new government under the Constitution. This influence was seen in the crafting of the federal-court system. Congress did agree to establish a federal court system that placed federal district courts in each state, but in response to widespread fears that this national justice system would wipe out long-standing legal traditions that had operated within the states, they decreed that these courts should be run in accordance with local custom. This compromise represented a balance between access to the newly created federal justice system and a preservation of tradition. Throughout its history, the United States has found reason to strike similar balances in countless political arenas as it has evolved.
Is the Constitution more reflective of states’ rights or strong central government ideals?
As a result of views of “radicals” (those in protecting the sovereign rights of states, in the parlance of the time) dominating the Articles of Confederation, Americans experienced economic chaos and political confusion that threatened their rights. After six years of disunity and an ineffective central government, “conservatives” (those in favor of more federal control) called for change and were able to persuade the American people to adopt a more centralized form of government. The U.S. Government since 1789 mostly reflects the ideas of the proponents of strong central authority, in which the balance of power rests securely in the national government.
How did the Constitution address flaws in the Articles of Confederation?
Under the new Constitution, the United States was a more tightly bound federation than the loose confederation that had existed under the Articles. The new federal government was divided into three separate but equal branches, each with distinct powers and authority. The new bicameral Congress was given the power to levy taxes, while the President was given the authority to execute and enforce congressional laws. The Supreme Court assumed the task of judicial review to determine whether Congress’s laws were constitutional. Thus, though the Constitution gave the new government greater power and authority, it also instituted safeguards to keep federal power in check, as the framers of the Articles of Confederation had originally intended.
Does the Constitution reflect more Federalist or Republican ideals?
Even though Democratic-Republican presidents held the office for 24 of the United States’ first 36 years, the Federalists had a much greater effect on the formation of the new nation. The Federalists pushed for the ratification of the Constitution and then bolstered the federal government by providing solid economic and legal infrastructure. Their influence put in place systems that have kept the United States stable and unified throughout its history.
What complaints did Anti-Federalists have about the Constitution?
If the Anti-Federalists had succeeded, the Constitution might never have been ratified. Patriots like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams believed that the new federal government would be too powerful and too constricting. They feared that the new office of president was too much like a monarch and did not think that Congress should have the right to tax all Americans. Like many political philosophers of their day, they thought that republicanism would never survive in a large country because the government would be too distant from the hearts and minds of the people it represented.
