Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
federalist vs anti federalist issues
bill of rights importance
federalist v anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: federalist vs anti federalist issues
The Bill of Rights is the name that we give to the first ten amendments to our Constitution. These first ten amendments were necessary to get the holdover states in the Union to ratify the Constitution. This piece of legislation is what gave us our most important individual rights such as freedom of speech and religion. It was not an easy road however and there was fierce debate from both sides about whether it should be included or not. In this paper I intend to argue for the Federalists about why a Bill of Rights did not need to be included into the Constitution.
One of the most important reasons why the Federalists fought so hard against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was because they believed that it would undermine the ideal that a government should have limited powers (377). The proposed legislation would be at odds with the main point of a written constitution as the product of a social contract, which states that all power initially stays with the citizens and that the citizens are the ones who construct a government that has limited and enumerated powers in a written constitution. For example, Federalists argued that deliberately stating the right to religion should not be infringed on could be misconstrued by people thinking that if the Constitution did not state this restriction specifically then the government would possess that power. In other words, the Federalists were afraid that people might think that the Constitution gave the government unlimited power and that writing down specific provisions in a bill of rights would only increase the sense that those sole rights that were written down were the only ones taken from a government that is usually unlimited in its power. This was obviously not what the framers ...
... middle of paper ...
...ce to state that every person in the country is given natural and inalienable rights just by the virtue that they are humans so writing down those rights again in a second document seemed pointless. There was no need to write up a document to state our inalienable rights especially since the proposed bill of rights seemed to be more about establishing a framework for how the government would act in certain situations rather than stating the natural rights of citizens. Federalists were cautious to explicitly state fundamental rights in a document that needed to be ratified by the people because it suggested that the source of our rights rests in the consent of people rather than in nature. So it seemed to follow that the Anti-Federalists were suggesting that our rights depended on the statement of those rights in a document rather than just their existence in nature.
The American Civil War had a very profound effect upon the American Constitution and upon American constitutionalism generally. The Civil war had indeed been fought over a question of states’ rights, among other things, and the states’ rights interpretation had actually lost and was, to a degree, a casualty of the wartime period. Further, that casualty was swiftly hammered into its coffin by three amendments which were enacted in 1865, 1868 and 1870 – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately became the heart and soul of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal battle’s surrounding the United States Bill of Rights have been to make it a truly national document – such that states may not violate its provisions. The Fourteenth Amendment finally made this possible.
Our powerpoint states that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, did not agree. The powerpoint mentions that they attacked every area of the Constitution, but two of its features attracted the most criticism. One was the extremely increased powers of the central government. The second included the lack of “bill of rights” that would have provided necessary liberties including freedom of speech and religion.
The Anti-Federalist Papers documented the political background in which the Constitution was born. The Anti-Federalist saw threats to rights and authorizations in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. A central government is the political authority that governs the entire nation. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. The Anti-Federalist proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. Anti-federalists continued to view a large and powerful central government as leading to autocracy, appealed to the actions of the British king and Parliament to demonstrate their point. Anti-Federalists
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
The prominent figures at the time, such as Jefferson, realized this; Jefferson states in his letter to Madison that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.” (Document E). The first part of Jefferson’s statement is plain and obvious: every decent government owes its people a Bill of Rights. The quote “rest on inferences”, however, means that a government, or rather any higher authority, should not attempt to guess what the people want. Instead, the government should represent the people, and ask them what they want. That is what common practices such as voting, and statements such as “no taxation without representation” embody. Nevertheless, in this letter Jefferson recognizes the Bill of Rights as a desideratum. Additionally, in Document C- Federalist Papers #38 - Madison reports that “A fourth concurs to the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity.” That statement illustrates what exactly the American people were asking for. They did not call for complete abandonment of political interests in favor of social freedoms, they wanted the State as a whole to have a set of rights. Also, the statement includes the words “political capacity”, which is a reference to the aforementioned notion that politicians and political parties should be limited in their power and should not be more important that the people. Rather, politics and socialization should stand on equal ground. Lastly, Document H exhibits four amendments from the Bill of Rights. Examining the wording of these amendments reveals how they specifically targeted the complains of the people and rectified them. Amendment I
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
The Founding Fathers accepted that the basic rights of individuals, rights to life, liberty, and private property, were not arranged by the government, and so when the Founders composed the Constitution, they were not surrendering new rights to people. It was just to create a steady form of representative republican government that would assure that the basic rights of mankind were less likely to be compacted upon. The objective of the Framers was not to make a extreme form of “democracy” (which the Founders reviled for its strong inclination to throw off the rule of law) in which everybody had the equal kind of say in government or in which nobody felt as if they were in a minority.
Following the states’ need to approve of the Constitution, both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists began producing papers that argued for their point of view in detail. Anti-federalists, who were the small farmers, laborers, and other middle class men, inclined to believe in a strong state government and a weak national government; additionally, they demanded a Bill of Rights to strengthen individual liberties. For instance, Jefferson Writings wrote to James Madison in 1787, “… a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse,” which meant to explain that a Bill of Rights would protect people’s freedoms and prevent corruption from the government that the Federalists envisioned, (Docume...
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.
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government, the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration, or bill, of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The Bill of Rights did not come from a desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, but rather from a fear of the powers of the new federal government.
The Bill of Rights was created because the states believed that the federal government would have too much power and they wanted to have more individual rights. Around this time the colonies had just been under the British rule, which oppressed the people and give them very limited freedoms. The states or the colonies were kind of afraid that this would happen all over again within this new government forming in the form of the Constitution. Most of the state at this time believed that the Constitution alone was enough but others felt that they needed more assurances. In the end, the federal government complied with these states and gave them the Bill of Rights.
In 1789 James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments of the Constitution, to the First Congress. The Bill was heavily influenced by Virginia’s Declaration of Rights and used primarily to protect the citizen’s rights and liberties as well as, as a limitation on the federal government. The “original Constitution contained few guarantees” for civil rights and liberties therefore, the Bill of Rights strengthened them mitigating fears about the new national government (O’Brien 324). Madison and Anti-Federalists hoped to place the same restrictions on states. They found the Bill of Rights practical, explicit, and essential while Federalists found it unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Hamilton seeks justification against the Bill of Rights using the Constitution’s preamble which briefly notes the “liberty” and “prosperity” afforded to the American people (326). He also argues that the Bill may be dangerous because these exceptions being placed on powers have not yet been granted (326). Nonetheless, in September on 1789, Congress proposed 12 amendments to state legislatures which were shortly ratified thereafter in 1791 (326).
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.
Supporters of a constitution, lacking a bill of rights, were called Federalists. The Federalists included members such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom wrote a series of essays that were designed to inform and persuade the public of their views pertaining to the issues of the day. Among these views was whether a bill of rights should be added to the constitution. The Federalists, via Alexander Hamilton, dealt with this issue in a foremost way in their 84th essay.