Federalists believed in the separation of powers because they wanted individuals to have separate rights. states to have separate rights. the central government to avoid monarchy. the nation to elect a strong executive.
Brainly is the best website ever right? Lol
Something scarce is something that is not found easily. It is sometimes limited therefore it is RARE.
Your answer would be rare. :) Hope I helped. :D
Your Answer: is the emeritus William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science and law at Stanford. He is the author of six books, including Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (1996), which won the Pulitzer Prize in History. And, he is a past president of the Society for the History of the Early American Republic.
Michael Rappaport is the Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, and the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law. He previously worked in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. He’s the author of Originalism and the Good Constitution co-written with John McGinnis.
Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.”
Explanation: Your Explanation In early August 1787, the Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Detail had just presented its preliminary draft of the Constitution to the rest of the delegates, and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were beginning to parse some of the biggest foundational debates over what American government should look like. On this episode, we explore the questions: How did the unique constitutional visions of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists influence the drafting and ratification of the Constitution? And how should we interpret the Constitution in light of those debates today? Two leading scholars of constitutional history – Jack Rakove of Stanford University and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law – join host Jeffrey Rosen. Hope this Helps! :D Happy Early Christmas! :D
Answer:
Explanation:
Throughout American history, the differences between the northern and southern states have often been the cause of divisions between the two. The American Civil War was the climax of an escalating feud between the north-based Union and the south-based Confederacy, a feud that had a significant basis in the different attitudes and lifestyles of each side`s respective citizens. Although the Civil War was based on more than one issue, slavery became a considerably important topic as the War went on. After numerous disputes about state and federal rights, and the election of Abraham Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform, several “cotton states” seceded from the United States, sparking what would become the Civil War. While it is certainly true that a significant portion of the North’s anti-slavery conviction was based on moral principles, to argue that morality was the sole factor in the Union’s abolitionist ideals would be a false generalization. In fact, many of the North’s anti-slavery ideals were not based on morality, but rather political, economical, and even racist factors. The anti-slavery ideology of many northerners extended far past mere moral rationale and into reasons of self-gain. Unfortunately, this area of history has often been modified to place the North (whose ideals formed the foundation of modern America) in a better light.
