The Constitution: It’s Shield Against Tyranny “The United States of America”, or better yet what individuals know and cherish as the land of the free and home of the brave. Going all the way back to the colonial period of the 17th century to now, one can’t help but to recognize the documents that implemented this country’s first sense of structure. Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, which was the country’s initial constitution, posed serious weaknesses, like the inability to enforce laws or the total lack of an official court system. After a prolonged debate, the first Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to draft together a new written U.S. Constitution, which would not only replace the Articles of Confederation and fix all
The United States should adopt the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution provides many advantages and new opportunities. First, the Constitution gives more power to the national government in many ways. For example, under the Articles the national government had to ask the states for money, but under the Constitution the government is provided with money and the power to tax. In addition, the Articles allowed states to regulate trade causing each state to tax one another's products.
Back in the early days of independant America there had been an ethical dilemma on whether or not they should ratify The U.S constitution. The main two arguments were whether citizens chose to maintain the status quo, or switch to a more centralized government. The two debates were backed up by James madison who wrote the Federalist No.10 for ratification and Patrick Henry who gave a speech against it. In the document James warns about how “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.” referring to someone or a group of people who could possibly create unique factions between on another and disrupt a potential republic.
1. Personally, I believe the constitution was the better document because it had more power. The articles of confederation gave the states more power than congress had, and because of this states either did was it said or did not. Because of the states having more power over Congress, the states did not focus on the needs of the whole country but only cared for their own state and what is best for their people. The constitution is better because it was easier to make changes and amendments to it.
Before ratifying the Constitution, a constitutional convention was called in 1787 to change the Articles of Confederation. This meant that each state had only one vote in Congress, and the size didn’t matter. The debate was between the federalists and Anti-Federalist, one side wanted to ratify the constitution and the other side didn’t. It was not easy because there were documents and articles both supporting and going against it. Who are the federalists?
Lora Reed Ontiveros P. Sci 180 01 July, 2017 The Constitutional Convention In February of 1787, Congress decided that a convention should assemble to amend the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention was held by a small body of well-respected delegates in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, to inaugurate a new union. This convention ultimately impelled three crucial proposals, the Virginia and New Jersey Plan, and the Connecticut Compromise, which led to the nation’s fist Constitution.
Many Americans found that the Confederation needed to be revised. In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, a New Constitution was made, but not all agreed. Due to this, there was a major debate among many people. In my opinion, I think the New Constitution should be approved.
Article Five of the United States Constitution clearly spells out ways to amend the document as so desired by Congress or the States. Regarding this specific topic, there have been recent debates over whether there should be a Constitutional Convention comprised of state legislatures developed for the sole purpose of bypassing congress in amending the Constitution. Before I watched the debate, I decided against this notion as I personally do not have any knowledge, presently, of how to amend the constitution. Therefore, there should not be a convention to do just that. Although the opposing side brought some real issues to light regarding the ideas of “Draining the Swamp”, using “True Democracy” for one person equals one vote/one state equals one vote, and stating that re-electing new congressional officials hasn’t changed anything either.
The young nation, barely three years old, was dying. Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, America was struggling to hold itself together. The Articles of Confederation, designed during the Revolution, demolished even the inkling of monarchy by forcing the national government to abide by the whim of the states. During the Revolutionary War the states held together out of necessity, but after the war, the states became hostile to their neighbors. It quickly became evident that a serious crisis has settled upon the United States.
he Constitutional Convention was composed of men of strong principal; men with firm opinions and the education to support those views. Their patriotism and analytical prowess fueled the Convention and its countless debates, resulting in months of writing and perfecting the document that serves as our nation’s foundation. The delegates’ intensity caused them to continue haggling over details up until just days before the Constitution was completed. Such was the case on September 14th, 1787, a mere three days before the Constitution was sent off for ratification. Several issues were raised for discussion that day, including that of impeachment, the publication of all the proceedings of the lower house of Congress, and the appointment of a national
The new constitution couldn’t please everyone. Some people liked it but some didn't. The two sides were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of ratifying the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. They would have debates about ratifying the Constitution.
The government of the United States of America had its infrastructure set in stone in the span of the year 1787 (National Constitution Center, n.d.) when this country’s founding fathers put their futures into their own hands and laid down various ground rules for the government to follow by constructing the United States Constitution. Among the words written in the U.S. Constitution, Articles I, II, and III records the given powers of the United States Congress, President, and the three branches of the national government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. These rules give many abilities to these parts of the government, but there are also restrictions given to them as well. Through the United States Constitution, the Congress is given
On a humid summer’s day, in 1787, 55 delegates traveled from 12 different states to meet in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Although they knew that the Articles of Confederation wouldn’t hold, they never intended on replacing the entirety of the Articles. The Articles of Confederation were a form of government that was swiftly created, during the Revolutionary War. It led to a central government that lacked power to do simple tasks. The delegates seeked to create a new central government that was powerful enough to lead the country, but wasn’t ruled by one person or a group of people.
The Federalist Papers consisted of eighty-five letters written to different newspapers in the last 1780’s, urging ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution needed approval from nine out of the thirteen original states. I agree with the Federalists concerning the issue of whether or not the Constitution should have been ratified as written. I have this viewpoint for many reasons. One is because I agree with the points Madison stated in the 10th Federalist paper where he discusses the fact that the Constitution makes the government capable of controlling damage and violence caused by factions, or political parties.
While it is undeniable the influence that cultures preceding the Aztecs had a major influence on how they presented their ideas and architecture, it would be remiss to say that they did not have a unique essence to their culture. Reflecting on both mythology and symbolism, ties can be made to other Mesoamerican societies. Many tend to swing their thoughts from one end of the spectrum to the other extreme end. Some may say the Aztecs were a solely unique society who greatly differed from others and had little to no influence. Others may posit that the Aztecs are given too much credence, and their artwork is just a natural progression of what the previous incarnations of these ideas would have become.
