Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Federalists strongly opposed the idea, because the protections for individuals were already written in the Constitution. Another reason for their opposition was due to the unnecessary need for a bill of rights in a political system in which sovereignty rests with the people and the government operates by the power of the people. If a list of rights were included in the Constitution, the Federalists feared that the assumption would be that any right not included on the list was not retained by the people. .
             The Anti-Federalists shared different view on how the government should run. Because of their experiences with the tyranny of Great Britain, they feared the establishment of a strong national government. They strongly disapproved with the ratification of the Constitution; instead, they were more satisfied with the Articles of Confederation. The republican government established by the Constitution was not supported by the Anti-Federalists, because this type of government would require the active support of people but United States government was too distant from the people. The Anti-Federalists wanted a national government that had authority equal to the states, not greater. Another reason for their disapproval was the government should be close to the people so that liberty could be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The Anti-Federalists also did not accept the use of separation of powers and checks and balances, because they feared the branches of government would abuse the power and not serve the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of the individuals. Because the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists focused almost all of their energies on attacking the Constitution because it did not explicitly guarantee the rights of the people. Given the "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists argued that there were no limits on the authority of the national government and, hence, no protection of the individuals.