Constitution

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

Most Americans did not trust the new government that was in place, but the Anti-Federalist was really skeptical of the government in general and strong national government. So in not trusting the government they did not approve of the new constitution. They were afraid it created a government that the people could not manage. Many notable Americans were Anti-Federalists. Some of the creators of the Anti-Federalist papers included George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. Both were present the Philadelphia Convention but had declined to sign the constitution. The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution had many imperfections. The Anti-Federalist believed the Constitution should have been constructed in a more public place and not behind closed

Some concerns of the Anti-Federalist party was that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government while taking too much power away from the state and local government. Many thought that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen. They thought the nation was too large for the national government to respond to the concern of people on a state and local basis. Also, the constitution didn’t contain a bill of rights. They wanted guaranteed protection for certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.

The American Constitution was questionable from the earliest starting point, as thoughts were separated between backers - an answer for all the country's issues, and commentators - a depravity of its republican standards. The supporters trusted that the Constitution augmented their republican thoughts, adding another level to the chose government, while the faultfinders trust the republicans worked in little political units, for this situation the states. The most effective method to separate the force between state governments and focal government was in this way a principle contention while the Constitution was composed furthermore later in time, remaining a vital issue until today.

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

These people agreed on the Constitution as they believed that it would strengthen the federal government. The reason behind their belief of a stronger federal government was their fear of too much power given to the people. They wanted people who feared the Constitution to know that they will not regret the ratification of the Constitution. Most importantly on their side, they want both sides to be happy. The evidence that supports these claims are, “...not invested with more powers than indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good government.” (Document 4), “These powers...are so distributed...that it can never be in danger of degenerating the monarchy.” (Document 4), and “Each individual then must contribute such a share of his rights as is necessary for attaining that security that is essential to freedom.” (Document 6). This evidence proves that the federalists are making sure that everyone is content with their rights. They are also assuring the anti federalists that the federal government will not abuse power and they will not take over their

In the year 1787 a fierce debate over the ratification of the Constitution took place in the United States. The young nation suffered from a government too weak to handle its problems but with citizens wary and skeptical of strong, central governments. This is where the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists took place, the debate that would set American ideals into stone with the ratification of the Constitution and the later-added Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government to help overcome the struggles the fledgling nation faced while the Anti-federalists believed that the Constitution did not do enough to secure the rights of the people from a tyranny not unlike that of King George’s. Throughout this

In 1783, the Americans triumphed in the American Revolution, which granted independence from Great Britain. After their victory, it became evident that the new country would need a secure and central government to thrive. The Constitution is a document formed to aid the new republic and ensure that it would become and remain stable. It gives a complete and thorough outline of the rights that all citizens are entitled to have. However, prior to the ratification of the Constitution there had to be many debates and factors that influenced the idea of such a document that would form the basis for the United States. The creation of the Constitution was a result of America’s perseverance through certain political, economic, and social issues of the 1780s. Even through the unfavorable circumstances, America was able to devise a doctrine that would become to be known as the basis for the greatest country in the world; the US

The creation of the United States Constitution stands as one of the most significant achievements in the annals of democracy. In the wake of independence, the fledgling nation found itself governed by the Articles of Confederation, a document that proved inadequate for the complexities of a growing union. The Constitutional Convention of 1787, convened in Philadelphia, was charged with the monumental task of forging a new framework of governance. The delegates, a collection of some of the most prominent figures of their time, engaged in fervent debates that touched on the very essence of federal authority, individual rights, and the delicate balance of power between the states and the central government. The resulting document, a testament

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America is apparently one of the best documents ever to be written. For quite a long time, individuals have dependably thought the Constitution has been honored and adored, however this is not the situation. Prior to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation managed the settlements, yet was immediately abolished in light of the fact that they were excessively powerless. On September 17, 1787, the constitution was made for the representatives, who at last got an understanding and endorsed the documents over which they had toiled since May. The constitution created another structure for American improvement.

The Constitution alone was not enough for the anti-federalists; they believed that there had to be a Bill of rights in order to protect citizens. The Bill would simply state the clear rules and regulations that allowed the citizens to know what the government is and is not allowed to do. The federalists argued that the constitution already established rights for the citizens and a Bill was not necessary, however the Anti federalists would only agree to ratify the Constitution if there was a bill of rights. Yates argues a major point in the Anti –Federalists papers against the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, he states, “The Congress shall judge of what is necessary and proper in all these cases and in all other cases;-in short in all cases whatsoever. Where then is the restraint?” (Essay II) There had to be a law preventing the government from being unfair or abusing power to the citizens. The Bill of rights was then created as a result of lots of compromise. It then allowed the people to know there rights if they needed to protect themselves in any way. This bill gave the citizens back the power that the antifederalists thought the citizens would not have under a federal

After the American Revolution the newly formed “government” was far from organized. Yes, the people achieved independence from a unruly and unjust mother country, but at what cost? Not only did this young nation have very little sense of a true structured government, but it was broke with most people were unaware of the situation on in their own country. The first written piece of real structured government was the Articles of Confederation. Although this document was criticized for it failing in the end, it was actually a very important step in the right direction towards a fully function government. Another problem raised during this time was the separation between federalist and anti-federalist. The federalists favored of a strong central government while the opposing anti-federalists sought to split the power among the states more evenly. Additionally the federalists privileged some of the more conventional British policies that were in place before the war. The anti-federalists were in favor of power “for the people”. If I were alive during this time I would be in preference of the constitution and most likely would have associated myself with the federalists.

The federalist supported the constitution with the idea of having a strong central government with limitless power, which the federalist believe would create liberty and power. At the time, the states needed a way to recover themselves after the American revolution and need a way to recover financially. The federalists believe with a powerful central government they can distribute power and money as they see fit to the states. These ideas lead many to believe, the united states were heading into the same type of government the British had. The Anti-Federalists believed the constitution would eventually take away the liberty and remind them of the consequences the document might lead to. They feared that “the government would be controlled by the wealthy, with the constitution only effecting small communities” (lecture 3/3/16). With the constitution the states had to surrender their power to the central government, with no guarantees of the central government abusing the

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.