The creation of the Constitution entailed hours of debate and compromise, and even when it was completed, some delegates were unhappy with it. The ratification of the United States Constitution gave way to a heated debate of the term democracy. Conflict sprouted throughout the country over views of how government should be, and the rights that it should grant the people. There were two different sides to this dispute, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Generally speaking, the federalists were in favor of ratification of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists were opposed.
The Anti-Federalits opposed the Constitution, they did not feel that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual were properly or sufficiently protected by the new Constitution. There basic thought process was along the lines or having faith in the common people, that people could overcome their selfish ways. .
The Federalists responded that the mass of Americans were selfish and passionate creatures. They thought that in a small republic this mass would steal the rights or property of the minority, and that tyranny could be much more assesable since it would be easier to domintate others. That is why there should be a group of educated elites to represent the common people, backed by a system of checks and balances. This is the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
The Anti-Federalists liked the idea of checks and balances, but argued that the people should be the ones checking. Their belief in the people is along the lines of my thought process. I think that no one man or group of men should have too much power. The Federalists wanted to take "the power out of the hands of the people" (Amy Kulauga).