DEBATING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: FEDERALIST VS. ANTI-FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS IN 2013
1. Find two articles about a current issue, topic, problem, etc. related to the debate over the role of government. The article should be about the idea of how big and powerful the government should be.
- Article must be from a respected news source
- Article must be from 2013
2. Write 150-250 word analysis of the article
- What's happening in the articles? How are they related?
- In what ways are these articles debating the role and size of the government?
- How does this issue relate to the debate that occurred between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the creation of the United States Constitution?
BLOG POST IS DUE BY FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20094/gun-control-debate-how-owning-a-gun-changes-the-dynamics-of-conflict
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0
DeleteThe first article is based on gun control, whither it should be banned or be allowed on the streets of those with the license of guns. Its is a huge problem on the streets and guns should only be in the hands of the experience people. (Federalist)
DeleteThe second is about gay marriage, now the republicans are feeling more strongly and supporting the gays. The president of the united states, "Obama" said gay marriage should be allowed, but its not really his say, but the gay people should have their rights, they are still citizens. (Anti-Federalist)
Both of these articles relate to the debates of government because it is up to them to agree/disagree, accept/deny. Either way the government is going to make the last call and Obama cant do anything really to prevent it, but the outcome of these choices to change the world entirely.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-24/news/bs-ed-gun-control-20130223_1_gun-control-gun-violence-restrictive-gun-laws
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/02/25/a-gun-control-battle-that-could-actually-damage-the-industry-is-escaping-public-attention/
ReplyDeletekatie derstine
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57571712/father-of-slain-sandy-hook-child-pleads-for-gun-control/
DeleteMy articles are about gun control. Federalists think having gun control is important because they believe in a strong central government. On the other hand, Antifederalists think we should keep the 2nd amendment alone which is a right to bear fire arms. Both my articles talk about the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. After the Sandy Hook shooting, federalists pushed more for stricter gun control. In my second article, Jesse’s father (a boy killed in the Sandy Hook shooting) spoke up about having gun control. Twenty children were killed in the shooting and now states are at odds about what should be done about this issue. The gun used in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was a semi- automatic rifle and now courts are debating whether to limit the sales of small hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.
Deletekatie derstine
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/tag/taxes/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2013/02/obama-administration-argue-gay-marriage-supreme-court-case
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/03/gun-control-laws/1960561/
DeleteIn the first article the controversy between the legalization of Gay Marriage is being discussed. The government has kept gay marriage illegal for many years and it has progressively grown into an argument that is worth being debated. The government’s role is greater than society’s role as it is in the second article. The government is taking a lot of precautions and consideration on gun control. The government has a big say in what is and isn’t restricted. After the Sandy Hook shooting the government started to become more aware of the things that could happen to the world. This relates to Anti-Federalist and Federalists because there are people that don’t think gun control is necessary, such as some republicans. They believe people should have that right to protect themselves, and it is stated in the constitution. These people are like the Anti-Federalists in a way that they don’t want a lot of control from the government and they don’t want to be told what they can and can not do. Also the gay population is like the Anti-Federalists and republicans in this case are like Federalists because they believe that in the constitution is stating gay marriage is illegal, and the government should enforce this upon everyone. The gay community is like Anti-Feds because they don’t want the government to be so involved in their lives.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/28/cnn-host-piers-morgan-gun-rights-guru-john-lott-ke/http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/02/28/md-senate-vote-on-gun-control-close/
ReplyDeletegun control is very debated topic. antifederalists want less gun control while federalists want more gun control. Having more gun control makes the civilians less powerful against the government letting them create laws that go against the constitution. The second amendment was created to protect the people against their government. From these sources it shows that skit of people don't realize that once guns are find then there will be a dystopian type situation that let's the government do what they want -Caleb Henshaw
http://ekantipur.com/2013/02/07/headlines/UCPN-Maoist-is-anti-federalist-party-Lekhi/366752/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bgnews.com/opinion/anti-federalists-views-misguided-hypocritical/article_33def072-7efa-11e2-92ab-001a4bcf887a.html
Both of the articles are about anti-federalist. In the first article it says how they are anti-federalist by Unified CPN (Maoist). They are saying that in a press conference the leaders of UCPN (Maoist) were pretending to talk about federalism superficially to deceive the general public but in reality they don’t want federalism in their country. The President Ram Baran Yadav, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, and the major four political parties including UCPN-Maoist, Nepali congress and CPN (UML) do not want to constituent assembly elections. Also he said he was against press freedom. The second article it explains some ones point of view on how they view anti-federalists and federalists. It talks about the second Amendment right and the disagreement over gay marriage. Also talks about how there an argument was played vicariously through the Civil war and how the conclusion was not that the Unions victory solidified the moral rightness of federalism by defeating the south. But the conclusion was that the north won that was the federalists view. The anti-federalist would argue that the federal government has no right the regulate businesses. Also that’s a reason why we have a Constitution and a centralized federal government.
Deletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/md-senate-passes-sweeping-gun-control-bill/2013/02/28/c5d38772-81b6-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/illinois-republican-gun-control-exactly-like-forced-castration/
In Chicago they want to pass a bill that will eliminate assault rifles. They have a runaway gun problem and republicans are mad that they follow the laws, but they’re still being punished even though they haven’t down anything wrong. Someone compared getting rid of guns to being castrated because families are having too many kids. It was an analogy to show how ridiculous this was. The state House of approved amendments to the bill that prohibit firearms in buses, public trains, schools, child care centers, casinos, government buildings and stadiums or arenas to ensure the safety of everyone.
In Maryland democrats passed a “sweeping gun control legislation” it will make sure that there will be tighter regulations on mentally ill, it forces most gun buyers to be fingerprinted. Thursday Republicans tried to fight this for four hours but they lost 28-19. The governors bill now heads to the house of delegates were law makers will make changes, but the bill has powerful momentum.
These articles are debating on the large problem of guns. Republicans as federalists do not want the bills, and laws for gun control to be passed, where anti federalist, democrats want tighter gun restrictions.
Mike Barr
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/wolf-doma-ruling
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/111941/obama-doesnt-need-assault-weapon-ban#
The first article talks about gay marriage and why it should and should not be legalized and what has happened to currently married gay couples. Also it talks about how DOMA sets rules and certain things that gay marriage couples can get. But during the second article it talks about how they think Obama doesn't need to ban assault rifles. To prove this they talk about how the last time they ban assault rifles in 1994 - 2004 how there was many flaws and the gun ban didn't really work. Also it talks about how hand machine guns are just as bad.
http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/opinion/queen_annes_county/letters/article_83402378-82d0-11e2-9047-0019bb2963f4.html
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawmakers-violent-emails-gun-control-18631881
My first article is about gun control. It is from the point of views of the sheriffs of Maryland and what they believe. There views are inline with the second amendment and they stand buy it, but they also agree to help their gov. O'Malley to pass the bill. They agree that you should make weapons harder to get for certain people but not to make so strict so as the law abiding citizens get punished.The second article was about state senators and state reps. who want gun control bill passed, who are receiving threatening emails. All this shows is that this bill is not worth it. If you do pass the bill you will keep guns out of dangerous hands but then you'll make a large amount of people angry. I think passing the bill will result in a rise in crime because criminals will want to prove you don't need guns to kill people. It is mostly anti-federalist because they are going against the strong govt. influence on this situation.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/01/201311616402212481.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/01/2718091/a-grieving-sandy-hook-fathers.html
The president of the United States had a press conference on gun control. He is looking to ban “military-style” guns on the streets and also an excess amount of ammunition. The federalists want a strong central government. This shows that they would like to have better gun control and keep the people on the streets safe from anyone with these big guns. The anti-federalists would want to keep it the same because they don’t want a stronger central government because they are afraid that he will turn into a dictator or king. With this situation they would have it stay the same and keep the second amendment the same without change. The second amendment says that anyone has the right to bare firing arms. Changing the second amendment in the anti-federalists eyes put a sort of control over them and could turn into a king/dictator. My second article is also about gun control. This time it’s about the sandy hook tragedy that happened in December of 2012. A man is grieving to the judge and to others about the importance on the control of guns and how people can act with them. 27 people lost their lives and 20 of them were kids. the federalist would be looking out for the people and protecting them with anything they can do. They would ban thee types of guns (automatics) from the streets. The anti-federalist would keep the guns the same and give the people the rights they deserve.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/03/gun-control-laws/1960561/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gun-control-20130303,0,3623994.column
My two articles that I got are about gun control. They're debating on weather there should be strict laws like banning assault rifles or just focus on making sure the guns don't fall into the wrong hands. The bigger government in this case would want to ban guns and not let any own one. In these two articles they're both leaning toward the anti-federalist ideals and would rather them focus on trying to keep the wrong people from being able to get there hands on a gun. The federalist want to make laws that only hurt us and they don't realize that the criminals will still be able to get a gun if they want to. The one article thinks that congress will focus on trying to strengthen our back round checks and make the illegal gun trafficking penalty greater. During the making of the constitution they took the more federalist rout and decided to give the people the right to bare arms and both these articles agree it should stay that way.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gun-control-20130303,0,3623994.column
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-refocus-attention-on-immigration-gun-control/2013/03/01/64fbe2d0-81ef-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
Both of these articles are about the topic of gun control in the U.S. and if/how it should be regulated by the government or state. They are both federalist because they both talk about the ways that government should take control and regulate certain guns, magazines (ammunition) and how many guns one individual should have. They both see government as very big, and very powerful because they think that they should go ahead and make the decisions for the good of most people instead of people making their own decisions and having many people’s life in danger. They also discuss the topic of how to make it so that it would be harder to even obtain a gun, which can mean a stricter background check, a longer waiting period to be able to purchase a gun, and trying to make it harder for criminals to sell guns by themselves to avoid all of these new credentials that will take place if the new laws are passed.
-Phil S.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/majority-sees-obamas-gun-control-plan-favorably/
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-26/local/37300657_1_gun-control-gun-violence-stricter-gun
In my articles they are both talking about federalists perspectives because they talk about how they want to have the government have more control in our lives. President Obama is trying to get stricter rules for gun control and who will be able to own a gun. He wants to try and make background checks more thorough and try to make sure that people will not buy guns and then sell them to criminals. Obama is trying to get thorough background checks on all guns sales, reinstating the assault weapons ban, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and armor-piercing bullets, new gun trafficking laws and increased access to mental health treatment. About 53% of Americans are on board with Obama’s plan for stricter gun control. However there are people that believe that they have their rights to own guns and protect themselves because of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms.
Also, in my other article the Governor of Maryland is making a plan that will force gun buyers to submit to fingerprinting, safety training, and background checks. Overall, both my articles are Federalists because they want government to have more power.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/03/gun-control-laws/1960561/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/company-will-move-if-colorado-approves-gun-control/
The 1st article is about the sandy hook incident (lies!!!). And other supporting things on why the gun control act should be past. The 2nd article is about a gun company in Colorado, wanting to move out of state if it passes the gun control bill.
Theses articles are debating about how the govt. is controlling the right s of citizens. The one is complaining about past events that support in passing the act. While the other is saying if you pass the act, we’ll take our business elsewhere. The govt is controlling citizens, therefore having too much power. These articles are for and or against the FEDERALIST Govt. The govt wants to control guns to protect the people. That will not work.
The federalists in this time and back during the making of the constitution wanted a strong control over the people with govt. The anti-federalists now and then, want the people of the nation to make their own decisions and protect themselves, not rely on the govt to help.
ReplyDeleteIvana Davila
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-28/local/37339909_1_gun-purchases-assault-weapons-mental-health-treatment
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gun-control-20130303,0,3623994.column
My first article talks about Maryland’s government and how they are dealing with gun control issues. It explains how they are trying to prevent horrible incidents from happening by being stricter on gun control. In Martin O’Malley’s plan lawmakers are tightening restrictions on gun purchases by the mentally ill and toughening license requirements. In a bipartisan move, the Senate voted to go beyond O’Malley’s plan. The Senate decided to do that, plus ban future gun sales to some Marylanders. Democrats desired that gun buyers submit their fingerprints, complete safety training and undergo stronger background checks to receive a license to purchase firearms. Resulting from O’Malley’s plan they ended up banning assault weapons and ammunition magazines containing more than 10 bullets. From looking at this article, you can see that the government takes a big role in society. The government insists on establishing certain requirements that they think will help create a better, safer society. A federalist would support this because they want the government to have more power and believe in a strong government too.
In my second article both the Senate and the House took important steps toward passing new laws involving gun control. The article talked about how there is a good chance that Congress will strengthen the system of background checks on gun buyers and toughen the penalties for illegal gun trafficking. Our current law has made it a requirement that a person, who buys a gun from a licensed dealer, get a background check. There are cases where not everyone who buys a gun gets a background check. If you buy a gun in a private transaction, even from a seller who advertises on the Internet, there's no background check in most states; California is an exception to this though. Studies have shown that criminals buy most of their guns on the streets from unlicensed gun dealers. If the government toughens up on background checks and how guns are getting sold, it would help prevent future troubles. Just like my first article, this article also has the government trying to play a big role. A federalist would support this too, since it deals with the government trying to take big part in helping the people.
Both these articles are related because they talk about gun control, and they are both in a federalist point of view. An anti-federalist wouldn’t support this; they wouldn’t want the government having too much power. An Anti-federalist would want less gun control and would want the second amendment left alone, which is the right to bear arms.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/01/201311616402212481.html
ReplyDeleteMy article is about gun control in America. The reason why president Obama wants gun control is because there has been many assurances with shootings and murders by unlicensed gun carriers and killing many people. The most recent and powerful event that happened was the Sandy Hook shooting which killed more than 20 students and teachers. Obama says he understands the strong tradition of gun ownership", but that the "epidemic of violence" must be stopped. Another huge thing that happened and people would want gun control laws is the massacre at Virginia Tech. The biggest problems that gun control is dealing with is that it should be up to the people to make decisions on gun laws. it is like saying that spoons make people fat and cars cause DUI's and that people should be able to have a right to carry a weapon where ever and when ever they want. then again the problem being is that if the wrong person gets a hold of the gun unfortunate and upsetting things can and may happen. In the end of this epidemic issue with gun control essentially no body will win. these gun rights are very anti-federalist and Obama is being federalist with the situation with the gun control. My personal view is that if you can make a reasonable law with gun control and not be either federalist or anti-federalist and everyone can end up winning it would obviously be the better if not best situation.
everyone should just run in a field of flowers and pet a kitten...
Avery
http://ketr.org/post/state-bill-pushes-against-gun-laws
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/18/1734601/hillary-clinton-i-support-marriage-for-lesbian-and-gay-couples/?mobile=nc
The first article is on gun laws which is affecting the state Texas of which a bill has been made and filed to stop and prevent assault rifles, especially banning the AR-15 because of mass shootings around the country.The people that have some of these guns claim that there great for protection and mostly for women. Obama believes that if the congress don't do something about it then he will.(Federalist)
The second article is about Gay marriage and how american people or people around the world are all humans,are equal so they have the right to be whatever they want,gay,lesbian etc, as citizens deserve the right of citizenship as said and supported by Hillary Clinton.(Anti-Federalist)
In conclusion both of these articles represent different views and opinions about the things they have in the country as well as the world today, both can fix it together which leads up to the three branches of the government.