ipl-logo

Essay On Bill Of Rights

607 Words3 Pages

Bill of Rights
As Americans we are given certain freedoms and natural rights that other countries are not entitled to have, the Bill of Rights supports this. Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, ratified in 1791 and guaranteeing natural rights for our US citizens such as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship. However, the Federalist claim that the constitutional bill of rights is not necessary on the other hand Anti federalist claim the bill of rights is mandatory to satisfy our citizens. In my opinion, I agree with the Anti Federalist because our people should have natural rights, it's mandatory for everyone. Imagine the United States without the bill of rights, crisis right?
Currently, the US has the bill of rights so why should it be eliminated from the constitution? From Source two written by the Anti Federalist No.84 they state, “ it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights such as rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc”. The Anti Federalist are right, citizens should not relinquish their natural rights. For this matter, the government and the community would fail. The federalist tired confirming that the bill of rights is not necessary. One of the amendments from the …show more content…

The Anti Federalist are afraid that the government would enlarge their powers. We got the idea of bill of rights from England where it originated from. The magna Carta is an example of the government trying to enlarge their powers and control the citizens. The Anti Federalist don’t want the federalist to follow through with this mistake. The government should not be allowed to rule over the citizens and have it become an oligarchy. Therefore the bill of rights is necessary for all, there is equality for everyone and

Show More
Related

Anti Federalist Paper No. 67 Analysis

886 Words | 4 Pages

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 by Robert Yates explains, “When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not just for us, but for everyone that comes after us. “ This relates the constitution to a building. Buildings are supposed to stand for ages, but without a sturdy foundation they will quickly be demolished. The constitution is not only designed for us, but also for our posterity so without a firm foundation, such as a bill of rights, it will quickly be abolished.

Read More

Compare And Contrast The Three Fifths Compromise

1157 Words | 5 Pages

In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.

Read More

The Anti-Federalist No. 84

392 Words | 2 Pages

I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.

Read More

To What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution

1024 Words | 5 Pages

The Bill of Rights was another topic the Federalists discussed. In a political system where government authority is derived from the people, adding the Bill of Rights “might afford the pretext for the government to claim power if it doesn’t have on the ground. ” It would provide protection against powers that have not been granted. In addition, Federalists argued the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights were included in the guarantee of habeas corpus, and prohibition of ex post facto laws. To adopt these provisions, states ratified the

Read More

Dbq Anti Federalism

239 Words | 1 Pages

The arguments between the Federalist and Massachusetts Anti-Federalist caused by Federalist paper #84 would have been very difficult to resolve without modifications to the items that were to be included in the Constitution like the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were considered to be relevant and deleterious to the Constitution by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who stated in the essay Federalist Paper #84 that the Bill of Rights is “...not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” In addition Hamilton pointed out that many natural rights, like the right to redress grievances, were already implied in the body of the Constitution, therefore no further listing was necessary. However, Anti-Federalist counteracted

Read More

Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

838 Words | 4 Pages

Another federalist named Jonathan Elliot said , “ … it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth.” (Doc #6) Elliot is stating that with few alterations, limiting the Constitutions power and allowing the states to make some decisions would change the Anti-Federalists mind and therefore they would create the Bill of rights to limit the

Read More

Differences Between The Articles Of Confederation And The Anti-Federalists

1100 Words | 5 Pages

They believed it was essential that individual rights were explicitly stated so that citizens were informed and could defend their own liberty (Cornell, 2012). The Federalists initially believed that a Bill of Rights was not necessary, as the states retained any rights and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. Seeking to get the Constitution ratified, the Federalists agreed to write a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights Institute, a non-profit foundation that aims to educate students, explains: The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech.

Read More

The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

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

Bill Of Rights Dbq

429 Words | 2 Pages

When our founding fathers first created the Constitution it was found unworkable and had to have some changes before the ratification. In that process people began to have some differences such as the Federalist saw that the enhanced Constitution alone would protect all basic human rights. While Antifederalist saw that we needed an extra addition to the document that would genuinely give the basic rights, liberties, and limit the government from denouncing these rights and liberties from the people. The Bill of Rights was a necessary addition that has and will continue to protect the people from injustice in the government with the help of the Supreme Court.

Read More

Bill Of Rights Dbq

190 Words | 1 Pages

Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth" seeing that some Federalist was skeptical of the idea of listing rights. James Madison called it "parchment barrier" but regardless of his skepticism the declaration of rights was added to the US Constitution13. Initially, some amendments proposed by Madison were rejected including his "proposal to extend free speech protections to the States. " What followed were debates over spelling out what constituted the Bill of Rights, especially the "due process of law" preserved under the 14th Amendment. However, it was not until in 1925, in Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652, did the US Supreme Court found

Read More

Right To Bear Arms History

866 Words | 4 Pages

But the funny thing is that the Anti-Federalists insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. With the Bill of Rights, come amendments Amendments are what make our Constitution modern. Our Bill of Rights

Read More

Arguments Against The Articles Of Confederation

1111 Words | 5 Pages

The existing state constitutions have Bills of Rights in place in order to protect the rights of the people and this faction believes one is required on a national scale as well. An additional quote from Lee reads, “All wise and prudent people, in forming constitutions, have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved.” The anti-federalist belief behind the Bill of Rights is to protect against future tyranny by clarifying what powers the government does and does not

Read More

The First Ten Amendments: The Bill Of Rights

430 Words | 2 Pages

The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments in our Constitution which protect our fundamental rights and ensure a limited government. In 1868 the 14th Amendment was added, which guarantees citizens equal protection under the law and due process. For the Bill of Rights to be effective it would have to protect everyone rights equally, but there are too many cases when minorities or anyone else’s rights are infringed. Therefore the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment is ineffective and does not protect the rights of all citizens. Someone’s race, gender, and religion could all affect how they are treated.

Read More

Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

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

Bill Of Rights Thesis

816 Words | 4 Pages

He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.

Read More

More about Essay On Bill Of Rights

Related Topics

Open Document