Why Was the Constitution a Controversial Document

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

The ratification of the Constitution in 1787 brought forth many changes in everyday life for many of the citizens. The Constitution and even more famously, the “Bill of Rights” was one of the most influential and somewhat disputed pieces of the government during these times. Furthermore, these disputes are the key reason of political change, governmental parties, and even social change during this time period and beyond. George Washington was elected president without debate or political status, he was unanimously chosen to run the country and continue the democracy. This obviously caused some controversy seeing as how many people didn’t want the country falling into another tyranny, so many people started to trust the government less.

Tensions were high in the united states during 1788. There were two sides as to what the union should do to move forward. After everybody realized that the Articles of Confederation isn’t going to be work for the country, there was a need for a plan. The plan was to get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace it with the Constitution. There were many factors in the Constitution that hesitated people to ratify it. The main issue was that the new national government under the new constitution would have a lot more power than the one under the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, it created two different sides; people who wanted the ratification of the new constitution, or federalists, and those who does not, Anti-federalists. To convince the Anti-federalists to change their minds, federalists wrote a series of essays to convince them, known as the federalists’ papers. I agreed with the arguments expressed in the federalists’ papers.

The Battle for the Ratification of the Constitution “But a Constitution of Government once changed for Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” - John Adams, Second President of the United States. The Constitutional Constitution was called to write a better plan of government to bring together the United States of America. Although it was a necessary plan many Anti- federalists refused to ratify it out of fear of losing the power they had.

“The Constitution is a proposal as big as a change as the document which separated us from Great Britain.” (Doc. 4). The new proposal of the United States Constitution came as a big to surprise to many people about how big of a change the new document actually was, but a big change is exactly what the country needed to solve some of the very important problems if faced. Since the country was in such a major debt and had no way to pay it back, things were only going to get worse, the debt we still owed to Spain had left them still controlling land

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

Fixing the problems of the Articles of Confederation was a lengthy series of debates, after and during the convention. There was six weakness in the Articles of Confederation, these weaknesses introduced a big deal of conflict, through the drafting of the Constitution, even if we tried the best to solve the weaknesses. When the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, it needed ratifications from nine states before the Constitution could go into effect. This was a very difficult task and the push for this brought on endless documents, articles, and pamphlets that were both and supporting it. During the Great Debate there were two sides to it, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The ratification of Articles of Confederation was approved, The Constitution was created. The founding fathers decided to create the constitution because the Articles of Confederation limited the central government too much. The Constitution was built to change. The way the constitution was built, it can be interpreted differently by different people, over the passage of years. Some interpret based on the way the founding fathers thought and others trying thinking how The Constitution is viewed today. The Constitution is designed for debate because it is flexible. The U.S. government is part Hamilton’s vison for America and the government is also what Jefferson had envisioned for America moving forward. The Constitution can have debates about its agenda because it is flexible like the elastic clause; America has what Hamilton designed because we have national banks and what Jefferson designed because he disapproved in the Alien and Sedition acts recently history the Patriot act and Obama Care have pushed The Constitution in to debate.

Constitution of the United State is a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the United States of America is governed. The living constitution ruling and the interpretation is based on the society’s current standings. The living constitution holds the ability to change and meet the needs of every generation, without being changed in a major manner, because it changes over time to adapt to new circumstances. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Beyer and Justice Antonin Scalia debated over how judges should interpret the constitution. Scalia focused on “text, language is supreme, and the court’s job is to derive and applying rules from the words chosen by the constitution’s framers or a statue’s drafters.”

“Roses are red, violets are blue, and at times, I like you.” This is a small, simple phrase at first glance. Based on an individual’s character, however, they may take it a different way. As the audience changes, so does the meaning. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the same principle remains. It is extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution, because of its complexity and fragility. Also, the fact is when time changes, people change. In other words, different generations have different interpretations of what the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to textualism, causing the judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether they can make new laws, even though their true vocation is to interpret the laws. Textualism trials test everything. Since the Constitution was written in 1788, they figure that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the current laws of the Constitution should be interpreted the same way as the original. An example of textualism would be the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, and the original Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. So in this paper, I am comparing and contrast these judges’ arguments of textualism, to decipher which one is correct.

The U.S Constitution, famously known for establishing America’s national government and providing fundamental laws assuring citizens certain basic fundamental rights was a milestone in our countries beginning. In today’s society, especially with all the turmoil happening between people and governing bodies the rights which the Constitution provides is saving many Americans from being treated poorly or as most would say “unconstitutionally.” The Constitution is simply one of the most distinct and brilliant documents to ever see the light of day. Although some may have little to no knowledge of the Constitution, it

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

The U.S Constitution was written by James Madison and was ratified on July 21, 1788. Ever since people had trouble determining how it should be interpreted. When judges interpret the constitution, they are interpreting new facts to an established law that has been given meaning and has a historical background. Many people argue that it should be read how it was written who are known as Originalists. Then there are people who believe that the Constitution evolves as society does and they are known as Living Constitutionalists. Also, some feel that the goal is not do determine whether the constitution should be determined originally or as a living document, but to give meaning on the basis of facts. In my paper I will discuss arguments on how the Constitution should be read, whether it be from the Originalists or the Living Constitutionalist’s point of view, and why Living Constitutionalism is better. As society evolves, there are new and more difficult problems that occur, and they cannot be solved by reading the exact text of the Constitution which makes Living Constitutionalism better.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

The ratification of the U.S Constitution was a labor-intensive and stressful procedure. The reason for this is because the 13 states split into two different groups based on how they felt about the issue: the federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the U.S Constitution whereas the Anti-Federalists opposed it. The debate over this topic included reasons about power and political stances. The major arguments used by each side in the debates over the ratification for the U.S. Constitution were whether or not the central government should have more power, whether or not the country would be disunited after its approval, and whether or not natural rights will be in jeopardy.