Our founding fathers created the United States Constitution, each man in hope of something different regarding the success of the document (“Constitutional Flexibility”). Two original framers of the document include Alexander Hamilton as well as Thomas Jefferson (“Constitutional Flexibility”). When they created the Constitution, they realized that any document that dealt with the government needed flexibility; they wanted the Constitution to be able to stand for generation after generation (“Constitutional Flexibility”). In the elastic clause, our founding fathers state that congress may pass all laws necessary and proper; which allows for a loose interpretation of the Constitution and allows Constitutional flexibility (“Constitutional Flexibility”). …show more content…
There are four prime ways/examples that the Constitution shows elasticity (Casey C.). The first example is the amendment process, in which 27 amendments were made to the Constitution (Casey C.). The next example is the Bill of Rights; in which they state all of the rights we have as citizens of the United States (Casey C.). The third example is the elastic clause which only allows laws that are necessary and proper to pass through (Casey C.). Lastly, the fourth example is how Jefferson and Hamilton believed that the Constitution should be interpreted (Casey C.). These are the most basic examples that show the elasticity of the Constitution created by our founding fathers (Casey …show more content…
Like Jefferson and Hamilton, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists obtained very different views regarding the document and the issues within the document. The first political party of the United States were the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton (“The Great Debate”). The Federalists supported the Constitution and tried to convince the states to ratify the document (“The Great Debate”). The idea of a Bill of Rights and amendments were argued among the Federalists, eventually making the concession to announce the willingness to take up the matters (“The Great Debate”). Without this compromise of the Federalists, the Constitution may never have been ratified by the States (“The Great Debate”). The Anti-Federals obtained the opposite ideas of the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution and believed that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights (“The Great Debate”). This group was not exactly a united group, but they decided to be involved within many elements (“The Great Debate”). These elements include separate factions in which one faction opposed the Constitution because they thought a stronger government threaten the sovereignty of the states (“The Great Debate”). Another faction argued that a new, centralized government would contain all of the characteristics of Great Britain that the country had
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
During the early 1800s, two parties were developed having different perspectives on government and the Constitution. The Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were always characterized by following the strict construction of the constitution. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were characterized by following the broad construction of the constitution. The presidencies of Jefferson and Madison proved this characterization to be somewhat accurate. Although the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists did support their own ideas and views, they also did many things that contradicted them.
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
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.
The creation of political parties originally caused some conflict. Many people thought that they were evil. As time went on, the people warmed up to the idea, and characterizations of the Republican and Federalist parties began. The Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, strictly interpreted the Constitution, but eventually, they loosened their views on the interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, Federalists held views on a loose interpretation of the Constitution, until they realized that a more strict interpretation could be a good thing.
In document C says, ¨The constant aim is to divide and arrange the powers in a manner that they may be a check on one another.¨ This tells that the constitution is written so that the three branches of government are constantly checked by one another because a law is unfair, biased, or unconstitutional. This also makes it to where the branches of government can't make whatever law they want allowing them to have complete power to do whatever they please thus preventing tyranny. If the branches couldn't check each other they would be able to easily pass laws that only benefit themselves and they could make laws that would put people in harm's way, being able to check each other and putting that in the constitution was a very insightful task. Being able to check each other prevented any one branch from gaining and holding complete control over the
Gordon Wood explains that the reason that the new Federal Constitution was considered a “radical experiment” was because it was giving the government power. Very few people wanted to have a government with power, seeing as they had just escaped from under Britain’s rule (Wood, 2012). Additionally, when the Articles of Confederation were first written, the first goal was to limit the powers of the central government” (Ginsberg et. al., 2013 pg. 42). However, these framers sought a government that seemed to defy this ideal of a limited government, they wanted a strong government and they wanted
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
Since its creation and its adoption as the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution suffered many changes. New amendments were necessary over time to stimulate the growth of the country
Also during the 1920s, a few flexibilities were extended while others were reduced. The eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
The Founding Fathers limit the power of government in the Constitution utilizing many different tactics, many more than even the aforementioned. Their main intent was to make the nation less democratic and to keep the government small. The Constitution has accomplished the Founding Fathers' goal until now, and will hopefully continue doing so in the future.
The constitution is our very best defense against tyranny. Tyranny is when one person or group of people is in total control. The constitution is a written set of rules that everyone has to live by. Our constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May of 1787. How does the constitution guard against tyranny? It guards against tyranny with Federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and with the Big State Little State Compromise.
In my opinion “The Constitution must be stable yet flexible” gives a foundation of guidelines rules but also gives room for the adoption of laws. The U.S. Constitution was an experiment in democracy more than 200 years ago, it has proved both stable and flexible enough to survive and remain effective in a world totally different from the one in which it was written. Moreover, the creators understood that the constitution was the framework for a new government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 focused their primary attention on the question of how to represent the various states in one central government and how to elect representatives to a central legislature fairly.