Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalist
Why is the second amendment irrelevant essays
the dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Bill of Rights We live in the 21st century, where most Americans mind their own business but take for granted our God given rights. Not only God given rights but also those established by our founding forefathers. This paper will illustrate and depict the importance of the original problems faced when adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will discuss the importance of the first amendment, the due process of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 8th amendments. Last but not least the importance of what is known as the “second Bill of Rights” (14th amendment). What problems with the original document motivated the adoption of the Bill of Rights? Many felt the Constitution was strongly focused on the power and authority the central government would have over the states and the people. Such supporter was Thomas Jefferson, who said, “bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on the earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787 (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2002). The Constitution was set up with a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. For its time it was remarkable but was flawed in expressing what it could do, but nowhere did it say what it could not. This was the great argument by the Anti-Federalist. Second, the Anti-Federalist would only support the Constitution if Congress was to include the proposed Bill of Rights. This would ensure the unalienable rights would be protected. Federalist No.84 says. “In the course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, I have taken notice of, and endeavored to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it. There, however, remai... ... middle of paper ... ...brief-history Coates, R. E. (1995-99). Freedom of the Press . Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1600.htm Freedom of assembly and association. (N.D.). Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=406 Hamilton, A. (n.d.). Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_84.html Morse v. Frederick. (2007). Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 Patterson, T. E. (2009,2008,2005,2003,2001,1999,1997,1993,1990). The American Democracy (9th ed.). [Adobe reader]. Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/TOC.aspx?assetdataid=d779f52a-1e20-4dad-a9af-b169cc8fe798&assetmetaid=972de29b-d180-4689-8f49-21b4f77c72a3
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
The United States Bill of Rights came into being as a result of a promise made by the Fathers of Confederation to the states during the struggle for ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. A great number of the states made as a condition for their ratification, the addition of amendments, which would guarantee citizens protection of their rights against the central government. Thus, we have a rather interesting situation in which the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the American Constitution was done by the virtual demand of the states, they themselves fearing a central government which was not legally constrained and restricted as far as its powers were concerned.
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?
Thomas Jefferson was an opponent of the adoption of the original Constitution, believing like many Anti-Federalists, that it gave the Federal government too much power, while depriving powers to the states. Jefferson was also adamant in opposing the emergence of a national bank. He believed that this would deprive the states of power to an even greater extent while further empowering the Federalists and the federal government. Additionally, the Anti-Federalists had adopted a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and that all powers of the federal government were not legitimate unless specifically stated. Going by this interpretation would mean that a national bank would not be able to be established, as that was not a right of the federal government specifically stated in the Constitution. Although a national bank did emerge, the Anti-Federalists did make other accomplishments that coincided with their agendas. One of the most major successes of the Anti-Federalists was passing ten amendments to the Constitution. The first amendments were collectively known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments gave rights that Federalists believed were implied in the original Constitution, but Anti-Federalists wanted them specifically written in, as to avoid any possible ambiguity as to what fundamental
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
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...
No argument shall take place against amendment one, amendment two, and amendment four because they apply in daily lives of all citizens. All citizens should freely speak their mind without disturbing public education. Citizens should remember about the National Firearms act before buying any firearms and getting a militia type gun or a shotgun with an eighteen inch barrel. Officers are required to have a search warrant before entering a citizens home, but school officials need a reasonable reason before searching a student’s belongings. School officials and students also should remember the exclusionary rule. The Bill of Rights and all other amendments served every citizen like a forever helping friend. The Supreme court plays its role to make decisions for cases that act as role models for other citizens and in the future.
With the states newly found sovereignty there quickly became disagreements to whether or not the Bill of Rights should be ratified. Federalists sought to ratify the Bill of Rights and in favor of a strong national government for control while the antifederalists opposed the ratification and strongly believed in state governments control so it was closer to the people. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay all favored ratification and therefore “wrote a series of compelling arguments known as the Federalist Papers,” which eventually led to a compromise being made that the “basic rights” of the people would be explicitly stated in the English Bill of Rights as an extra layer of protection so the government could not run all over the colonies. After many discussions and arguments, ten amendments of the Bill were ratified in order to limit the national governments grasp over the civil liberties of
With a more decentralized government, each state could decide what was in best interest for their citizens. Anti-Federalists consisted of Southern and western farmers and laborers who greatly valued their individual rights and did not want those to be taken away by a large federal government. With the Constitution, they believed their rights and liberties would be taken away. A strong central government would possess too much power and overwhelm the states by overriding their rights, laws, and increase their taxes. The Anti-Federalist Papers No. 3 argued “The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few…” (2). It exemplified that with the Constitution delegating power to the few elite, they would worry more about the interests of the broad majority at the expense of the individual. The individual would have to give up his or her rights to the few in power and trust that they will accurately reflect their interests. In order to satisfy Anti-Federalists demands for protection of individual rights, Federalists implemented the Bill of Rights into the Constitution once it was
Chapter fourteen of our text book covers the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 14th amendments which cover different rights of the government and the people. In this paper, I will be summarizing these amendments and how they are important to us.
In 1791, the Bill of Rights, consisting of 10 amendments, was ratified into the constitution. The document’s purpose was to spell out the liberties of the people that the government could not infringe upon. Considered necessary by many at the time of its development, the Bill of Rights became the cause for a huge debate between two different factions: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were those who thought that there should be a new Union created with a strong centralized government and individual regional governments. They felt that it was not necessary for there to be a bill of rights because it was implied that those rights the Constitution did not specifically state would be handed down to the states. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to such a form of government on the grounds that the Constitution, in which it was outlined, lacked clarity in the protections of the individuals. The Anti-Federalists—whose memory of British oppression was still fresh in their minds—wanted certain rights and guarantees that were to be apart of the constitution (Glasser 1991). A clear demonstration of the Anti-Federalist attitude was performed by Samuel Bryan, who published a series of essays named the ‘Cenitnal Essays,’ which “assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion (Bran 1986).” Of course, the freedoms stated above are a portion and not the whole of The Bill of Rights. Ultimately, The Bill of Rights was adopted to appease the Anti-Federalists, whose support was necessary to ratify the constitution, and who believed that without the liberties granted therein, the new constitution—that they thought was vague and granted too much power to the central government—would give way to an elite tyrannical government.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
In 1789 the Constitution had been published, but it did not include a Bill of Rights. The government was split into two groups, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. Federalists thought that the Bill of Rights was not needed and that the Constitution could not improve. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that it was needed and that it could improve the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists and the Federalists both publish documents that had the reasons that supported their claim.
Another argument used by Hamilton was reminding, those who criticize the constitution for lacking a Bill of Rights, that many of the state constitutions do not contain one either. He believes that the Constitution, as is, effectively includes a bill of rights. The constitution contained various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights. Provisions such as the power to impeach, writ of habeas corpus, the allowance for no bill of attainder or ex post facto law, no granting of title of nobility, trials that shall be by a jury in the state which the crime was committed within, and that punishment for treason will not extend to family members of the person convicted of that crime.