I think A hope this helps
( ' 3')
Antifederalist saw the Constitution as a way for the Federalist to gain more control over the states. This was seen as the opposite for the Federalist Party because they just wanted to create a central government that was strong enough to run the whole country. The Antifederalist Party was totally against the ratification because they were afraid that the national government would become too powerful and take advantage of their power. The Federalist Party was for the Constitution because they saw it as a way for the people to get more involved in the government since the most powerful branch would be directly linked to the people. Lastly, the Antifederalists saw the Constitution as a way to take the power of the states away while the Federalists interpreted the Constitution as a way for the states and the national government to have similar powers that still allow the national government to handle national affairs rather than having the states do it.
The Normans were anti-slavery. Rather than enslaving prisoners, they worked out they could make a tidy profit from ransoming them. The Normans built all the Romanesque cathedrals in England.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional as it limited free speech, which is guaranteed in the first Amendment. If the individual states chose to nullify the acts, that would be a sign of rebellion. I do not think that the US should institute forms of the Alien and Sedition Act. It's America. The people here should be free to say what they want to say.
