How were questions over the relative power of states and nation addressed in the Constitution? What new form of governmental organization resulted from these debates?

What will be an ideal response?

Debates between federalists and anti-federalists centered around the relative power of states versus the national government. Federalists argued that this new federal form of government was necessary to preserve individual rights and liberties, and anti-federalists argued against any increase in national power, warning that the national governmental powers would infringe on the rights and authority of the states. Federalists argued that strong states and weak nations have led to the downfall of republics in the past and that the principle of confederacy, which calls for weak national governments and strong states, has caused “incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.” James Madison argued that a balanced approach to power between state and national government, which he called federalism, was the solution to the problem. As a result, we have a federal republican form of government that allows for a sharing of power between states and the national government with a Supreme Court in place to settle disputes between the states and between states and the national government itself. This is not to say this system is perfect, as the question of states’ rights and national power continues in political rhetoric to this day.