Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argumentative text essay
Argumentative text essay
Argumentative text essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argumentative text essay
Argumentative text essay
Argumentative text essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..
Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.
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.
A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.
The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.
Before the famous Constitution became published on September 17, 1787, there was a huge democracy over it since some people supported it (federalists), while others opposed it (anti-federalists). Basically the main arguments used by the Anti-Federalists in the discussion of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Constitution offered too much power to the federal government and that the rights of the people were not promised through a Bill of Rights. In order to get their words out, they had ratified convections for the thirteen states. They choose to go to Pennsylvania first because of its size, influence, and wealth.
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
ln the two-hundred & forty years since its founding, the United States of America has grown from several colonies banding together for survival to a great world superpower with significant influence in world affairs. The backbone of this nation's success can be found in its Constitution, the document that defines the properties of the country's branched government, guidelines for laws, and rights for its citizens. Under the Constitution, the U.S. has prospered. lt has, in more recent years, exposed some flaws; such as antiquated language and outdated processes, but they are easily fixed.
Daniel Webster once said, “The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions,” meaning that the constitution prevents higher ranking people to carry out a plan for the benefit of themselves or others. The Constitution was written in 1787, it is a set of laws that the people, government, and any form of leader would have to follow. It also guards against tyranny, meaning it prevents harsh absolute power in the hands of one individual like a king or a dictator, or when several generals or religious leaders seize control. Tyranny can also be caused by the many, the majority denies the rights of the minority. The “Constitution Mini-Q, page 95” wrote, “for Madison and his few delegates, the challenge was to write a constitution that was strong enough to hold the states and the people together without letting any one person, group, branch, or level of government gain too much control.”
The US Constitution has enjoyed a long life in its American state, with amendments to reflect the changing times, ideologies, and proposed laws. Comparativists have proposed the idea that the US Constitution, while ever-evolving, is only suited to the conditions in the United States due to many reasons, some being due to the specifics of the Revolutionary War. However, some comparativists believe that since there were amendments to the Constitution, it could be applicable anywhere in the world. The argument of this paper is that the US Constitution is only suitable to the conditions of the United States, and to provide evidence, China will be used as an example.
The Anti-Federalist were correct that the Bill of Rights was necessary to guard citizens from tyranny. Anti-Federalist wanted to have a limited government to protect against tyranny because to much power in one hand could limit the right to the people. To prevent this a constitution was created to divide power and keep the government in check. The constitution was a document that states and the government acknowledge and with hold. Although this happened the Anti-Federalist argue that the Bill of Rights were need to safeguard the liberty of the people, but Federalist argued that the constitution did not need a Bill of Rights because the people and the stares kept any power not given to the federal government.
The constitution and the Bill of Rights have made drastic changes in how this country has developed over these short years. The people on both sides of the arguments have their own opinions. The antifederalists are not use to equal rights. They want one ruler and no equality. The federalists want the
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
Clash of the Constitutions- Draft One Imagine living in a land where the Church and the State are not separated. Imagine living in a land where regime corruption and oppression are present too often. Imagine living in a world where basic human rights are ignored and embezzled. For Americans, it seems a hard thing to imagine since America grants its citizens the basic rights and religion is not mixed in with the government, but in Egypt this is a natural occurrence. However, recently, Egypt passed a new constitution.