ipl-logo

Arguments Against The Constitution Dbq Essay

629 Words3 Pages

“I have a different constitution. I have a different brain; I have a different heart; I got tiger blood, man” quote from Charlie Sheen. Everyone has their own opinion on everything, even on as many things as what truly makes us American. So, to begin the debate of the Constitution was rather cloying or dreadful to many. You were either a Federal or a Anti-Federal (against or with the Constitution). Both sides had their own reasons to believe to accept or decline the offer. Anti-Federalist believed that some poor would never get into government, there was no liberty in press, the government had too much power, and most of the rights they fought for in the war isn’t present in the constitution (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). The Federals said that the Constitution was a new protecting, efficient federal government for the many current problems, the complaints of the farmers, the …show more content…

There is always another side to the story. Federalist, these people supported the constitution. Though they knew that the constitution wasn’t perfection yet, According to document 3 George Washington state 's ”We have errors to correct… would to God, that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend”. George was sure that the constitution wasn’t perfect but that in this time of need they need something like it. They need a strong government, to win over the people who won’t support over fear of loss of natural laws, like mentioned in document 1 “Let us look and behold the distress which prevail in every part of our country… View these things, fellow citizens, and then say we do not require a new, a protection, and efficient federal government if you can” this document was quoted from a newspaper in Massachusetts. The Federalist have a paper stating new laws and rights of the people while missing one of the most important, the natural laws of the people. You don’t need a paper to have natural rights, you 're born with

Show More
Related
248 Words | 1 Pages

The debate was during the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists believed that it gave too much power to the federal government. While both sides agreed that something different from the Articles of Confederation had to be created, many were uncomfortable with how far the Constitution went, and worried that the states would lose their sovereignty. The Federalists supported the Constitution, because they believed that the nation could only succeed with a strong national government.

Read More
358 Words | 2 Pages

George Mason and Patrick Henry had valid arguments and provided multiple points to support their rejection of the U.S. Constitution. George Mason and Patrick Henry were Anti-Federalist, a political party at the time which argued against the formation of a strong central government. Both Mason and Henry opposed the Constitution because they felt the Constitution would be similar to the British monarchy which had a powerful leader which would enforce unfair laws as well as taxes amongst the state governments and the people in them. George Mason main argument against the Constitution was the creation of a National government which would be strong enough to destroy state governments which represented the people and their interest.

Read More
138 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong national government to provide order and protect the rights of the people. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists, which included many patriots, such as Patrick Henry and John Hancock, opposed ratification because the Constitution shifted the balance of power

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who

Read More
193 Words | 1 Pages

The Anti-Federalist consisted of many proud men who believed that the bill of rights was in did necessary before executing the future government. Unlike the Federalist, who focused on a central government that could have personally stolen and threaten our freedom; had no right to engage the Constitution? In the document Brutus 1, had stated clearly his motive, “Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt

Read More
1378 Words | 6 Pages

This is the place the battle to approve the constitution started. The Anti-Federalists had numerous focal contentions against the selection of the Constitution. The advocates, the Federalist proposed a superior contention for shielding the approval of the new Constitution which made them win. The Anti-Federalist were those men who contradicted the endorsement of the Constitution in 1789.

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

Read More
838 Words | 4 Pages

When the United States first gained their independence from Britain they needed to create a strong government for their colonies. The United States created their first government called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles came with many problems like no power to tax, no power to enforce the law, or regulate commerce. 10 years after having a weak government, they believed that a new type of government need to be created in order to become a strong government. They came up with the Constitution.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Read More
1064 Words | 5 Pages

While the Constitution established a presidency which did not grant ultimate power, the foregoing of a term limit enabled an individual to lead a country for a lifetime. Individuals like Alexander Hamilton would have loves this, as he was in favor of a lifelong presidency once elected, and believed he may be a candidate for that position. However, this had the potential to turn into a monarchy, or even a tyranny. The biggest fear of the anti-federalists was returning to the same stagnant political situation they faced back in Britain. I definitely would have had this fear, and consequentially seen this flaw, meaning that I would have had a significant gripe with the Constitution being ratified and not taking this into consideration.

Read More
1012 Words | 5 Pages

These people are known as federalists and antifederalists. The federalists are the people that support the constitution. These people believe that the constitution is the best way for the country to prosper. It is the only way to make sure this country stays the way it is. On the other side of the argument are the anti-federalists.

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.

Read More
389 Words | 2 Pages

There are always two sides of an argument, in this case for ratifying the constitution there were the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Federalist wanted to ratify the constitution because a powerful government would help many individuals under it, “The constitution would find its supporters among the farmers and workingmen of the nation, of course. Urban artisans and small shopkeepers saw the advantages of a government powerful enough to increase commerce and trade. And backcountry subsistence farmers facing hostile Indians and their Spanish allies on state borders saw the virtue in a government strong enough to repel frontier enemies or negotiate favorable international treaties”(pg 173). Furthermore, the only people that opposed it were the wealthy and educated which were the very few in the nation, they even wanted a new constitution but not the one being

Read More

More about Arguments Against The Constitution Dbq Essay

Related Topics

Open Document