the president should have enough power to lead.
Further Explanation:
<u>When the constitution of United States of America came into power, There was very much of a debate in regards to powers vested under it to the President of the country. </u>These was clear division of viewpoints in this issue as federalists had different say and anti-federalists were completely opposite in this matter. The federalists wanted President to be given enough power to lead whereas the anti-federalists wanted President to not to be provided with all the powers.
The reason that Anti-federalists were opposing it was because they feared that if President will have majority of the powers then the proposed Congress will be too aristocratic in nature as there will be too few few representatives for too many people. Anti-federalists also believed that the government should focus more on local politics. <u>They were of a view that if President will be given supreme authority then it can lead to rule of monarchy in the country.But federalists were of the view that President should be given enough powers to lead the country.
</u>
Learn More:
1. identify one cause and one effect of Spanish settlement in north America <u>brainly.com/question/4775525
</u>
2. Which region of Mexico is best for growing crops? <u>brainly.com/question/1472033
</u>
3. central and state governments influence each other in <u>brainly.com/question/462208
</u>
<u>
</u>
Answer Details:
Grade: High School
Chapter: US Constitution
Subject: History
Keywords: Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Monarch, Powers, Representatives, politics, local, majority, Congress, United States, president.