There was intense disagreement over how much power the federal government should be given in the Constitution. were concerned with preserving individual and states’ rights. , on the other hand, wanted to expand the power of the national government.

" The anti federalists  were concerned with preserving individual and states’ rights. The federalist, on the other hand, wanted to expand the power of the national government."

Explanation:

The topic of how power ought to be partitioned between the central government and the states is truly what American legislative issues has been about for well more than two centuries. It is an inquiry bantered by agents to the Protected Show in Philadelphia in 1787, bantered by Federalists and Enemies of Federalists during the confirmation time frame, and bantered between and inside our ideological groups from that point forward. Races have been won and lost on this inquiry, and a Common War battled about it.

The Protected Show without a doubt was called to widen the forces of the national government as they existed under pitifully ineffectual Articles of Confederation. However, there was significant difference among the representatives regarding how broad the forces of the government ought to be. The record created in Philadelphia in September of 1787 mirrors various settles on the subject of the privileges of states and the forces of the new government. While the sway of states was safeguarded in many regards, explicit arrangements were incorporated constraining their forces (States were denied of the forces to, for instance, "disable the commitments of agreements," establish ex post facto laws, or pass bills of attainder). Most fundamentally, be that as it may, the Constitution in Article VI ("The Matchless quality Condition") made any legitimate exercise of government law (and the Constitution counted a not insignificant rundown of administrative forces, including the expansive capacity to control trade) better than any state law "actually."