If YOU were a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-federalist? Explain your reasoning!

Anti-Federalist.

Explanation:

The Anti-Federalist movement is what makes up the core of the current Republican Party. It called for a weaker central government (or what is now known as the federal government), and allowed for individual states to govern themselves based on their own needs and, to a certain degree, wants. Essentially, what is imposed on one group can be drastically different from another community.

For example, take counties for example. A urban county in California can create legal codes and laws that are more suited for it's own citizens, such as having a larger police force, focus on worker's rights, and many others. On the other hand, a county with large amounts of farmland may prioritize getting a sustainable and easy access to water for each member of the community that owns farmlands, as well as priority towards community goods that can enhance not only their individual produce, but also the community's output and growth as well, not only on the scale of supply, but also in profits, etc.

Essentially, the Anti-Federalist party wished for internal sustainability on the long term, by allowing smaller individual governments to meet the needs of it's own people. What does the federal government do then, you may ask? In that case, the federal government keeps together the union, and is tasked with foreign affairs. Each individual county may contribute funds to the state, which in turn contribute funds to the federal government (mandatorily). The federal government would then take care of the foreign affairs, alliances, as well as use the funds to raise an army in times of need. The system of the federal government should still be in place, with the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The power will be balanced as it is intended to be today.

~

d. direct

worcester v. georgia, legal case in which the u.s. supreme court on march 3, 1832, held (5–1) that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on native american land. andrew jackson refused to enforce the ruling, the decision form the basis for most subsequent indian law in the united states.