Anti-Federalists Vs Anti Federalist

I witness a time for everything: birth and death, destruction and reconstruction, and war and peace. As we live in the same universe, we live under a single mechanism – time. It is equally permitted to everyone. Likewise, each nation has its own standard ruling system called the government. People of the United States of America live under the governmental compromise called the Constitution; although, it did not happen all at once. At the birth of the United State on July 4, 1776, people created the first contract called the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, it had to be torn down and rebuilt because it threw people into political turmoil. There was a disunion between the states and the nation. How did the states harmonize, then? What

The Federalists argued that the nation was a large republic which needed a stronger central government to keep the states altogether. However, the Anti-Federalists feared the strong national government. They worried about the government’s neglect of social concerns and the lack of civil liberties (Abernathy 74). Accordingly, in 1788, the Federalists published 85 essays in “Federal Papers” to introduce a political propaganda to persuade Anti-Federalists that the constitution would not overwhelm the states. For example, in Federalist no. 10, Madison pointed out that the problem to faction could only be resolved through the new Constitution (Abernathy 71). In Federalist no. 51, he explained the distribution of powers between the states and the nation within the three branches of national government (Abernathy 71). Under this structure, none would be above another. The Constitution still did not appeal to the Anti Federalists. They enforced an addition of Bill of Rights to promise citizens their rights and protection (Abernathy 74). Ten amendments to the Constitution were added to please

Nevertheless, the Constitution cannot withstand the “time”. As long as the time is ticking, the generation will continue to evolve. I want to argue that the time for an end is inevitable. At one time, we need to amend the Constitution that fits our generation. We need to revise the problems and keep the best of the current Constitution. I think the overpower of Supreme Court is one of the issues that arise, because they are the ones to interpret what is or is not constitutional and if any laws or treaties are subordinate (Guevara, “9/22”). If I were to amend the Constitution, I would change the Second Amendment - right to bear arms. According to the amendment, people can own a gun for their protection (Abernathy A15). I believe, the police or the military could better protect the individuals. Today, individual gun ownership in public can mean a threat. The recent gun incident in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, 59 people died from a shooting and more than 489 people were wounded, approximately 550 gun-related injuries in one place (Bui et al.). The Washington Post reported that it could have been a conspiracy as he had been in and out of two-room suites for several days because they found “an arsenal of 23 guns”. This was a terror. It could not be defended, because the terrorist fired the guns from a distant place atop Mandalay Bay Hotel (Bui