The Pros And Cons Of Ratification Of The Constitution

The Constitution DBQ The Constitution of United States is regarded by many as an important document, for it gave the common people the power to form a government the way they want. Yet, despite all the benefits that it brought to the American people at the time, people also had some concerns about the Constitution such as: it is creating a Central government that is too powerful, only white men that owns property are allowed to vote, not everyone in the nation are treated equally, etc. When the Constitution was first being drafted, Representatives from each state hoped to add terms that would benefit their own states—this lead to a heated debate on how the Constitution should be formed.

“Richard Henry Lee’s Objection to the Constitution” and James Madison’s “The Federalist No. 51” contend about the positive and negative effects of the Constitution. Both essays are important documents for early American history, and both contain valid points. James Madison, however, presents the better argument with his diplomatic, content, and logical approach. “The Federalist No. 51” begins with a question about how America can properly divide government power (Madison 1). Madison believes the Constitution is the answer because it gives the foundations and tools to keeping the power of the government for the people.

When the Constitution was first drafted in Philadelphia, 1787, there was strong opposition to it from the supporters of the Articles of Confederation, America’s first governing document. One of the starkest Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, believed the Constitution was a gateway to power for tyrants, similarly, Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed the Constitution’s ratification, believing the Constitution would strip Americans of their freedoms and liberties. Despite their efforts, the Constitution was signed into law, and is now contrarily viewed as that which protects Americans’ rights. The US Constitution is a more democratic document than the Articles of Confederation because under the Articles there was no proportional representation, Americans did not directly vote for any representatives in Congress under the Articles, and the Constitution implemented federal income taxes were able to fund a government that could effectively protect the rights of American citizens.

Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

The document essentially split the nation into two camps. On one hand, there was a group who welcomed the document, seeing it as necessary for progress. On the other hand, there was a camp which opposed the document, arguing that it represented an unwelcome change. The fact that it ushered a new form of governance where authority would be shared between the federal government and state authorities is one of the factors that made the constitution a controversial document (U.S National Archives and Records Administration, n.d). There are those who felt that the constitution took away authority from the state governments and therefore robbed them of their autonomy.

The Federalist Papers: Taxation The Federalist papers provided the reasons to support the (then) new plan of government characterized in the Constitution and replied to all critiques of the plan. The Federalist papers were analyzed on how creating a strong government would be harmful to liberty. What the critiquers were not understanding was that an active government is necessary to the survival of liberty. The Articles of Confederations plan did not completely protect these human liberties. The plan did not act significantly on the people and could not enforce its laws.

As it was definitely difficult to do so, the Constitution was ratified in

During the time period of the late eighteenth century the United States were seeking a new governing platform that would support the ideals present in the American Revolution. Principles such as freedom, independence and natural rights were among the driving forces in shaping the constitution. Throughout the creation of the document many disputes occurred, the Federalists wanted a strong central government with unchallenged authority while the Anti Federalists fought for personal freedoms and decisions to be made at a state level. Correspondingly once the Constitution was completed The Anti Federalist opposed to it. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights in addition to their claim

Author Boyer et al. writes, “They had become convinced that unless the national government was freed of control of the state legislatures, the country would disintegrate” (Boyer, et al.). The purpose of meeting for a Constitutional Convention was to begin to place these wishes into writing and avoid this suggested national

The Constitution “Give me liberty, or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) The introduction of the Constitution brought along a frenzied dispute between two parties of people known as the Federalists, and Anti-Federalists. Each of these parties had theories on whether or not they believed the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists, a like James Madison, were the individuals who were for the ratification of the Constitution.

The controversies over the ratification of the Constitution was taxation, too much power to the President, trading, and the lack of Bill of Rights. There were people who agreed to ratify the Constitution the way it is, which were called federalists. Federalists reasoned that Americans should ratify the Constitution because Americans are allowed to ask for additional amendments after they ratify the Constitution. The ability to be able to request additional amendments after supported the Federalist’s point of view because the Anti-federalists may ask for further amendments after which could happen after they ratify the Constitution.

They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.

DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.

The constitution and the Bill of Rights have made drastic changes in how this country has developed over these short years. The people on both sides of the arguments have their own opinions. The antifederalists are not use to equal rights. They want one ruler and no equality. The federalists want the