The Pros And Cons Of The Constitutional Conventional

1055 Words3 Pages

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed. The thirteen colonies were no longer under King George III rule. It was a new world that needed a new type of leadership. On July 12, 1776 the Second Congress proposed the Articles of Confederation. The articles were ratified by all thirteen states on March 1, 1781. Under the Articles of Confederation each state had its own sovereignty. And the central government was to provide thing such as national security, treaties, courts, and currency. However the government could not tax. If the states didn 't pay their bills to the government there was nothing the government could do about it. This is just one of many reasons why the Articles didn 't work. In 1786 Virginia tried to get the Articles modified by holding a meeting known as the Annapolis Conference. This meeting failed because only five states sent delegates. A few months later another meeting was held in Philadelphia. The meeting in Philadelphia was successful, it is known as the Constitutional Conventional. James Madison went to the …show more content…

Libel and slander, this means false allegations that are published or spoken can be grounds for a lawsuit. Meaning one person can not threaten another persons life and get away with it because of the first amendment. Other examples of things that you are not free to say are obscenity and anything that incites to imminent lawless violence. The framers had many goals for the constitution. One of their most important goals was protecting liberty by limiting the government. They were able to protect people 's liberty in many ways through the constitution. The Bill of Rights and grants and denials are just a few examples. The framers learn through mistakes of other countries as well as mistakes through the Articles of Confederation. Work Cited Patterson, Thomas E. We The People: A Concise Introduction to American Politics. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Open Document