The Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

The Bill of Rights was partially inspired by the musings of John Locke. When constructing these rights, the Framers understood that "bills of rights challenged kings to remember the Lockean truth that the people had fundamental rights granted by nature, rights that the government could not abrogate" (Fox and Pope 107). Various amendments in the Bill of Rights use Lockean language and support his ideals, such as Amendment V with Locke's ever-famous "life, liberty, or property" (Fox

Before ratifying the Constitution, a constitutional convention was called in 1787 to change the Articles of Confederation. This meant that each state had only one vote in Congress, and the size didn’t matter. The debate was between the federalists and Anti-Federalist, one side wanted to ratify the constitution and the other side didn’t. It was not easy because there were documents and articles both supporting and going against it. Who are the federalists?

The second stresses the importance of guarding a society against oppression (Madison 2). If the majority is united, the minority is left unprotected without the Constitution. Madison ends the essay by restressing that the Constitution will protect the people of America because it protects people’s rights, limits government, and looks out for the minority. The Constitution must stand if this newfound American government wishes to

There are countless Arguments both for and against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Some of the main arguments of the Federalist include that a strong National government offered protection for the people’s rights, the government would benefit from a 3 branch system and a system of checks and balances needed to be created. Some of the main ideas of the anti-federalist were that the National Government would have too much power, a Bill of Right needed to be added, the constitutions effect of the government would be too tyrannical, and that the federal court system would be too powerful. Considered the Father of the Constitution, James Madison was detrimental in the creation In the US Constitution.

To the highly-valued citizens of the United States of American, we believe in order for our newly-founded country to thrive, our constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the system of government which it has formed must be replaced and a new constitution be adopted. We believe the Articles of Confederation have proven to be ineffective and the source of many hardships in our nation. To strive to solve this significant challenge, we have created and propose a new constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and federal government. As an explanation for our reasoning, this pamphlet has been written to clarify the Articles of Confederation’s weaknesses, how the new constitution can fix these problems, and present how the Constitution

When writing the Constitution, the Federalists, which included Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, had stated the rights and liberties of the civilians within the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, a federalist, believed that if a Bill of Rights was to be created then the whole idea of republican government would fall apart. As stated in a federalist letter, " [the constitution] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and on this very account would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”(Federalist No. 71, Alexander Hamilton). The Constitution stated that all free people had equal rights. Rights that were implicit, which connected to fixing all the problems within the government and the people.

The United States Constitution has created much debate since the moment it was conscripted. It has been argued that Constitution of the United States is a document that was drafted in response to the evolution of society. Others have argued that the creation of the Constitution was made as an effort to create a strong national government that was capable of exercising real authority and preservation of ideals in the revolution. The American Constitution is seen as being reactionary because the founders of the Constitution wanted to react to change in restoration of the previous state. The U.S. Constitution is considered reactionary because one should consider the events, documents, and people who participated in the era of the Constitution.

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

The arguments between the Federalist and Massachusetts Anti-Federalist caused by Federalist paper #84 would have been very difficult to resolve without modifications to the items that were to be included in the Constitution like the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were considered to be relevant and deleterious to the Constitution by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who stated in the essay Federalist Paper #84 that the Bill of Rights is “...not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” In addition Hamilton pointed out that many natural rights, like the right to redress grievances, were already implied in the body of the Constitution, therefore no further listing was necessary. However, Anti-Federalist counteracted

In the following paragraph, I will describe to you the different arguments that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had with ratifying the Constitution. Our Constitution should involve focusing on the common good and civic virtue of the people. There is no need for an overwhelming amount of power provided for the national government to where they make all of the decisions for us. A Bill of Rights would give us such things as the right to speak freely and make our own decisions that we, as a people, think is necessary for the common good. This writing will describe all of these points that support the Anti-Federalists and the reason to reject the new Constitution.

Labunski starts by taking us to the Philadelphia Convention where Madison recorded the convention proceedings extended periods of time every day, noting every vote and discussion. Surprisingly, Labunski barely remarks on Madison’s role in the writing of several of the Federalist Papers, instead he focused on Madison’s exchange with Patrick Henry at Virginia’s ratifying convention and his pivotal role in that convention. Madison initially believed that the amendments on personal liberties were unnecessary because the Constitution in the form it was written, gave very few rights to the federal government. However, he and a few others argued that by specifying individual rights, that would imply that the federal government would receive the authority to all other personal rights.

The arguments presented in Henry Steele Commager, and Staughton Lynd’s interpretations of the constitution provide more compelling and accurate arguments than Charles Beard’s. “A Constitution for All the People”, and The “Conflict Over Slavery”, when read together, provide the motivation for the constitution as well as an explanation for its articles. While Lynd’s piece provides reasoning for how, many of the articles in the constitution came to be, through the sectional divide of the North and South created by the conflict over slavery; Commager describes the constitution as a political document with two main goals, solving federalism and limiting governmental powers, clearly outlined in the constitution and its articles. In comparison

One of the biggest influences that John Locke had on President Jefferson was, what John Locke dubbed, “Natural Rights,” and what Jefferson called, “Unalienable Rights.” Meaning practically the same thing, these rights were very similar, and it is obvious that Jefferson’s version derives from Locke’s ‘Natural Rights.’ John Locke’s version stated that all peoples shall possess the following rights: Life, Liberty, and Property. In this case, life means, that people people will fight to live and want to survive. Liberty refers to being free, and being able to make one’s own decision.

A concerning number of citizens of the United States today consider the United States Constitution to be a relic. A memorial to aspirational thought we are to remember with fondness and adapt to our own changing societal needs. This is an unfortunate frame of mind, for this document was not merely a pleasant thought in the minds of U.S. Founders, but a brilliantly conceived legal document at significant personal cost to the men and women who developed it. It is a document that has the ability to withstand the test of time. The principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not something one would likely find as the foundation of any political doctrine until the United States Constitution was conceived in response to the lack

The citizens of America need unalienable rights to protect themselves from the government. The unalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the document Andrew Sullivan