More handpicked essays just for you.
The creation of the american constitution
What is the importance of the bill of rights
The creation of the american constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The main issue that went wrong with my debate was how logical I found the other side. I was put on the anti-federalist side, however I believed the federalist side made more sense. This made it difficult to debate the anti-federalist side and to have counter the good points Sophia made (which were really good). However, I still believe I was able to counter her arguments well as I knew the anti-federalist side and I understood what they believed. It definitely would have been easier to argue the federalist side, but sometimes it is better to get a challenge and argue something you don’t necessarily know all about or agree with. The Constitution did effectively balance federal and state power in my opinion. The writers of the Constitution did a good job blending both …show more content…
Except, practically usually isn’t good enough. Without the rights directly spelled out, the government can twist the words of the Constitution and abuse these rights. This is the main argument for the anti-federalist side to why there needs to be a Bill of Rights. While the federalists may believe a Bill of Rights limits a person’s rights to that list, without the Bill of Rights at all there could technically be no rights. With the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, the rights are definitely insured and guaranteed by the government. That doesn’t mean a person’s rights are limited to the list at all; it just means the rights that are in the bill are the ones definitely protected by the government. Obviously the federalists’ argument didn’t hold up very well as there is a Bill of Rights today, and I believe that is probably a good thing as looking at all the protesting that goes on today and how all of those people always directly quote the Bill of Rights, I can definitely say it was more beneficial and not at all negative like the federalists believed it were to
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
With these different balances to control the powers throughout the new government, the problem of tyranny wasn’t as such of a problem as it was when the Articles of Confederation were in place. The states were now represented justly, the national and state levels of government fairly empowered, and the three branches within the national government were balanced. Even the three branches within balanced each other out, so one wouldn’t become too under or over powered. The new government created by the Constitution was a good answer to protect against
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to be a functional independent nation.
Federalists, and those who were against it. Anti-Federalists. The.. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a. a centralized republic of the United States. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect Constitution would have state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army.
We can only guess who different the United States would be now. If there was no bill of rights, it is possible that the freedoms that we see today in the ammendants would be limited or even not exist if the government felt threaten. The government would possibly expand its power and “for the greater good of the american people” would limit our rights. All we have to see how that would work out, is look countries who have strong national government, and see how they taken their peoples freedom ( india, Venezuela, mexico, Pakistan). Countries like these shows us why the push for the bill of rights was so impoartant and how it impacts are lives on a daily basis. The Anti federalist assisted in securing our liberities, by limiting government intervation in the state problems as well as our daily
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
The political views of the federalist and the republicans towards the government of the United States of America were different. The republicans stressed equality of rights among citizens allowing people to govern themselves. The federalists believed in a stronger government one in which was sovereign and had superior power over the local governments.
All of the topics discussed in these essays are very relevant to their respective causes. They are all backed up with valid information and examples. These essay's were written by very respectable men and show much insight on the subject of whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very opposing views, but used some of the same topics to support their point of views.
After the establishment of the constitution, the Federalist administrations faces many significant challenges when dealing with the economics of the United States; much of the country was divided over issues such as how to raise money, establishing a public credit system, how to pay the national debt, and whether or not a national bank should be established. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison came to represent the ideas of the people and as these ideas became more solid, debate and opposition rose. The Federalists saw multiple ways to resolve these issues, and the resolutions established that leadership in the United States would be successful.
When the Second Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution in 1787, there was a controversy between the federalists and the anti-federalists surrounding whether or not to have a Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists claimed that a bill of rights was needed that listed the guaranteed rights that the government could never take away from a person i.e. “inalienable rights.” A Bill of Rights was eventually deemed necessary, and has worked for over 210 years. There are many reasons why the ten amendments are still valid to this day, and the best examples are the First Amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
Though the two-party system of American politics has been in place since the late 18th century, exactly which two parties are contending for control of the government has occasionally shifted. One of the powerful political entities that formed at the beginning of this period, the Federalist Party, built up a large, well-known presence in the early republic, advocating for centralized government and banking, and a positive relationship with the British as the way forward for the burgeoning United States government during the period surrounding the turn of the 19th century. This affinity for the United States-Britain relationship and the accompanying overseas trade practiced by the United States would eventually spell doom for the future of
What are the pros and cons of federalism in the US? Federalism is a political system in which regional governments share power with a central or national government, but each level of government has legal powers that are independent of the other. Federalism is what keeps our government so called balanced. I will start with the pros first. We can say that federalism mobilizes political activity, various levels of government gives citizens different levels to be heard, it gives them higher levels of command to go through to get where they want to be. Federalism affects the interest groups more than anyone because they cannot just take over national governments but have to go through the state and local government first. This is where we get the dispersal of power, “a key objective for the founders was to disperse power and a two-level system that divided power not just among branches of government, but also between levels of government helped accomplish this goal” (Bond, pg. 80). For example, the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch carries out the laws, and the judicial...
years, it would be easy to ignore the anti-federalist of 1787 and 1788 as an
Though the founders of the united states gave much consideration to the division of responsibility between federal and state government, many citizens today continue to debate the correct balance between federal and state government. My position is that the government powers are not well balanced. Some areas of conflict where the powers are improperly balanced are the executive and judicial branch. An area where the balance works well is in the legislative branch.