ipl-logo

Essay On Section 9 Of The Government

899 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Similarities and differences between state and federal government

To the People of New York State: Just a short while ago we embarked on the journey to regain our liberty from tyranny. The unalienable rights in which our nation was founded have guided the establishment of our government. The purpose of government, political philosopher John Locke believed, is to secure and protect the unalienable rights of the people in which it governs. However, when a government fails to do that, people have the right to alter or abolish it, forming a new political system in its place. As people, we possess the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. WE THE PEOPLE have established a new government through the Constitution. Therefore, we do not have to protect our unalienable rights from …show more content…

We can unanimously agree no government or person in charge should become too powerful. Provisions are already emplaced in the Constitution preventing this fear and securing the rights of the people. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution establishes writ of habeas corpus and prohibits ex-post facto law and titles of nobility. Alexander Hamilton writes these provisions are “greater securities of liberty and republicanism” than anything a bill of rights would include. Why have a list of liberties that can’t be impeded when the power to impose those restrictions was never given? Hamilton backs up the foolishness of this question by stating, “the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.” The Constitution advocates for what our nation holds to the utmost importance, the people. There is no need to re-secure the liberties given to the people and states by adding a bill of rights. I ask of you to consider the Constitution itself a bill of rights, as it creates a limited government in which the people are free to govern themselves and their rights are to be …show more content…

By specifying liberties cannot be obstructed, what is to be said for the liberties that aren’t endorsed in a bill of rights? Having a bill of rights suggests that if not included in it, that right is permitted by the government to infringe on said right. Furthermore, does a bill of rights forbidding the national government from acting in certain domains elude the government has power to act in others or at all? This ultimately ends up giving the national government a great deal of power that within the Constitution is granted nowhere. Opponents of the Constitution say they are fearful the national government will be too strong. So why are they in favor of adding a bill of rights which would ultimately end up intensifying the power of the national government they are so hesitant to

Show More
Related
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
921 Words | 4 Pages

84 wrote, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” This quote states that they will limit the government so that it could not impose on people’s rights. Alexander Hamilton argues that by limiting the government this makes the bill of rights redundant. In the Anti-Federalist papers, “Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars—Three Bugbears” stated that “as long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety”.

Read More
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
827 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
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
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
314 Words | 2 Pages

In trying to figure out if the first congress wanted to adopt the constitution or not they realized that they did not want it to be a repeat of how the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. The founding father seen that as an example of what not to do therefore they can focus on what would be better at the time for congress and United States. This is why the U.S. Bill of Rights was to be constructed in way to organized citizen’s actions. It was like giving a rule book to the people in protecting citizens therefore they feel protected by their government.

Read More
1379 Words | 6 Pages

The Bill of Rights also changed the government and transformed it for the better. The government is the way it is because of the Philadelphia Convention. The delegates knew that America would evolve and adjust so they offered some protection. They didn’t want the constitution to hold back the country from developing, so they inserted a law in Article Five stating that the government could make changes or amendments to the constitution. This crucial decision has benefited generations.

Read More
1305 Words | 6 Pages

The U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. This established America’s national government, the fundamental laws, and guaranteed basic rights for the citizens of America. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the power the national government had was to strong and that it would lead to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson stated “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth” (Brookhiser). James Madison agreed with Jefferson and recognized that by listing specific rights, known as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would remind citizens and members of the government that those rights were inalienable.

Read More
1226 Words | 5 Pages

The faintness of the articles of confederation brought conflict between the two sides in a scenario where the Federalists argued that the ratification of the new constitution would be beneficial to the country while the Anti-Federalists opposed their rivals’ stance ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). However, the major issue of the debate concerned the annexation of the Bill of Rights in the constitution. On the one hand, the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, believed that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was not necessary since the government and not the people were limited by the constitution ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). On the other hand, those opposed to the constitution such as John Hancock argued that failure to include the Bill of Rights in it meant that the government would be stronger, therefore threatening the sovereignty of the individual states ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). Anti-Federalists also debated that the system created by the new constitution would threaten the liberties as well as fail to protect the rights of

Read More
158 Words | 1 Pages

At the beginning of the preamble, Thomas Jefferson makes four assertions, four rights the people have and cannot be argued about. Two of the four assertions made include, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (168). These two statements Jefferson makes point out that all people are equal under god, and that those same people are born with certain rights which include Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. The last two claims Jefferson suggest that the government “derives their just powers from the consent of the governed” and that if the people feel threatened by the government they can “alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” (168). Through these last two comments,

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
714 Words | 3 Pages

The reason that most Antifederalists did not support the new Constitution was that there was no list of individual freedoms and rights. That is why the Bill of Rights was created. What is the Bill of Rights? The United States Bill of Rights is a famous document that is made up of individual rights and amendments, or changes, to the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution allows citizens to amend the Constitution.

Read More
1122 Words | 5 Pages

The power to do whatever is necessary to preserve one’s life is given up in order to be under the rule of laws. The other power that is given up is the power to punish, this is given up because the government is meant to protect its citizens. These powers are given up in order to gain security and

Read More
316 Words | 2 Pages

The Bill of Rights was passed to protect American citizens’ freedom of religion and speech, equal treatment, and due process of law were regarded to be so important that, except for a Constitutional Amendment, a majority should not even be allowed to change these sacred rights. Rule of law was introduced in the thirteenth century and still holds true to today’s standards. Under this social contract, all persons and entities are held equally responsible for publicly enforced laws that are consistent with the principles of all human rights. The democratic republic that we live in acquires ultimate power from the citizens, who then elect officials to run our United States government. It is the hope of the electorate that the laws proposed and

Read More

More about Essay On Section 9 Of The Government

Related Topics

Open Document