The federalist papers make the case for a federal system in the U.S. This would create a strong central government that is checked by state and local governments. The main idea is that people are inherently fractious and no ones faction should gain complete power.
Also, by allowing different layers of government, people are both involved and also there is a balance of power.
Opposed to the federalism, where people who only wanted states to have power and really no central government. This was refuted by the federalist as causing weakness in countries especially in the foreign affairs.
<span>D. All electors voted for both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.</span>
<span>Certainly not. The United States has never, since its founding, consisted of a small number of citizens, still less of citizens that could practically assemble in one place at one time and debate their actions. A pure democracy in this classical Greek city-state sense was never practical, and was not seriously considered.
What the Framers created was a constitutional representative republic. Sovereignty is vested in the people, like a democracy (and unlike a constitutional monarchy), but the people do not rule directly. Instead, they elect representatives, at regular intervals, and these rule in the peoples' stead. Their powers are limited, first, by the fact that they are elected for only short terms, and must be re-elected if they wish to continue in power, and secondly, and much more importantly, by the Constitution itself, which puts express written limits on their powers even between elections.</span>
I think the answer is A because it’s a desert
