The problem with the presidency is that it was difficult, I think, really almost impossible to know what the executive would look like until the institution was actually operational. Of course, the other aspect is that as long as George Washington becomes president, you won`t worry about it. The main opinion between federalists and anti-federalists was what power the federal government should have. Federalists believed that the economic problems and internal turmoil facing America in the late 1780s were due in part to the weakness and inefficiency of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. They cited Congress` inability to fund projects as an example of this inefficiency: according to the articles, Congress could not raise taxes and forced it to ask states for the money it needed. However, States were not required to provide assistance. Although Congress asked for millions in the 1780s, it received less than 1.5 million from the states between 1781 and 1784. Once again, we see the traditional arguments of the anti-federalists. Then the federalists say, “The traditional system is not working.” That is in line with the idea of the Senate.
Because once you get rid of the Council, the Council could be the traditional institution for deliberation and approval of appointments. Once you get rid of a board, you have to have advisory approval and be somewhere else, and so you gave that to the Senate. Rosen: [00:14:50] Thank you for that answer. I must admit that the debate on Federalist 39 was the one I had when I was a first-year law student with Akhil Amar, my admired teacher. I said that the federalists had not clarified the question of which peoples were sovereign and the federalists were 39 years old. It took (inaudible) and civil war to settle it in Wilson`s favor. In August 1787, the Constitutional Convention examined the manuscript of the report of the Detail Committee. This was the second draft Constitution to be circulated. I know this because in the Constitution Center`s Gallery of American Treasures, we have the most important drawings, July 24, August 3, September 12, and September 17. It is as good a reference as any other to talk about the debate between federalists and anti-heralds. Another topic that Jack mentions is what kind of separation of powers do we want at the federal level? There is the anti-federalist view, which we could sort of call a strict separation of powers.
They wanted the legislator to have the dominant power. They made all the laws, and then the executive would simply enforce them and the judiciary would decide them. Some people are quite quick to argue for state sovereignty. Because one of the things that happens that becomes absolutely clear in 1800, but we see a lot in advance, is that people argue that the anti-federalists and their heirs with respect to Jefferson`s Democratic Republicans, argue that the Constitution was really a pact between states. The differences between federalists and anti-federals are enormous and sometimes complex. The convictions of the federalists could be better described as nationalist. Federalists were instrumental in drafting the new U.S. Constitution in 1787, which strengthened national government at the expense of states and the people, according to anti-federalists. The anti-federalists refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution, but they never organized themselves effectively in the thirteen states and therefore had to fight against ratification at every state convention. .