Answer:
A Federalist would likely respond to Gerry's criticism about the approval of treaties by emphasizing the importance of a strong and effective federal government in handling foreign affairs. Federalists believed that the Constitution provided the necessary framework to ensure the United States could function as a unified and respected nation on the world stage. Here are some points a Federalist might make in response:
Efficiency in Negotiations: Federalists would argue that the Constitution's provision for the President to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign nations, with the advice and consent of the Senate, allows for efficient and decisive foreign policy. They would contend that having a central authority responsible for treaty negotiations avoids the delays and potential inconsistencies that might arise from state-level negotiations.
Unified Foreign Policy: Federalists would stress the importance of a unified foreign policy for the United States. They would argue that having a single national government in charge of treaties ensures that the country speaks with one voice in international matters, projecting a stronger and more stable image to the world.
Checks and Balances: Federalists would also point out that the Constitution's requirement for Senate approval provides a system of checks and balances. While the President has the authority to negotiate treaties, the Senate's role in approving them ensures that no treaty can be ratified without the consent of the legislative branch, preventing potential abuses of power.
Flexibility: Federalists might argue that the Constitution's approach to treaty approval allows for flexibility in international relations. Treaties can be negotiated quickly when necessary but still require the Senate's approval, which acts as a safeguard against hasty or ill-advised agreements.
Overall, Federalists believed that the Constitution's approach to treaty approval struck a balance between the need for an effective national government in foreign affairs and the preservation of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from wielding too much power. They would likely argue that this system ultimately benefits the United States in its interactions with the global community.
Step-by-step explanation:
Have great day!