Wynter Guilbault

11-25-14
3rd Hour

Anti-Federalists or Federalists?
If I had the chance that many people had in the past
to choose what they want to be, I would seize it and
become an Anti-Federalist. I would do this because I
feel as if we needed a bill of rights, the Federalists
wanted the states to have no rights, and that the
president could get away with things any normal
person couldnt. I say that because on
TeachingAmericaHistory.org under Objections to the
Constitution page 2, it states, There is no declaration
of rights; and the laws of the general government
being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the
several states, the declarations of rights in the
separate states are no security. This proves that with
no declaration of rights, the peoples rights are not
protected by laws.
Also, in the article, it also reads, The judiciary of the
United States is so constructed and extended as to
absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several
states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate,

and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great

part of the community, as in England; enabling the
rich to oppress and ruin the poor. This piece of
evidence tells us that the judicial authorities would
prevent the states from having their justice.
The last bit of evidence I will presented is, The
president of the United States has the unrestrained
power of granting pardon for treason; which may be
sometimes exercised to screen from punishment
those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the
crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own
guilt. This proves my statement correct; the
president would be able to get away with thing that
anybody else wouldnt be able to. This violates and
previous decisions to include the Magna Carta, which
makes the king subject to law. Because of these
things, I would be an Anti-Federalist rather than a
Federalist who approved of these things.