Compare And Contrast The Anti-Democrats Vs Anti Federalists

Words: 572
Pages: 3

The Anti-Federalists attacked the Constitution's separation of powers from the perspective that there was a homogenization of the various branches of government. In Centinel I, it argues that there was not enough separation powers among the branches . The Anti-Federalists believed that the necessary separation of powers were dependent on a caste system not established in the United States, such as an aristocracy as opposed to a bourgeoisie. Federalists argued for the supplying of the positions of the Legislative branch via elections that are either direct or indirect. Patrick Henry, argued that these elections would create an elected aristocracy in all branches of government and not a system of checks and balances . The Anti-Federalists feared that the election of Senators would lead to the development of this aristocracy, taking more and more power. The idea that Senators who were elected by the state legislatures for six years, …show more content…
This is the Anti-Federalists weakest argument pertaining to the Legislative branch as annual elections decrease the stability of the branch and doesn’t provide a reasonable timeframe for a representative to implement legislation and attain results. In Federalist No. 52, the Federalists respond by explaining that biennial elections are necessary in order for representatives to develop experience without them being immediately concerned about reelection . The Constitutional structure of the House of Representatives forces representatives to be accountable to the people. The people directly elect their representatives and the chances of the house becoming an aristocracy is unlikely compared to the Senate. Therefore, the length of the terms of representatives is not as important when the constituents have control over who represents