ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

656 Words3 Pages

The Constitution was drafted as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation—the first constitution of the US which loosely held the states together. When the Constitution was being drafted, there was much debate on how much power the Central Government should have. The Anti-Federalists believed in States’ Rights, while the Federalists wanted to give more power to the Central Government. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratifying of the Constitution. A compromise was made—the new Constitution of the United States would include a Bill of Rights. Many of these rights written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been ignored by today’s Federal Government. One example of this is the USA Patriot Act. After the 9/11 Terror Attacks, …show more content…

The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Despite that, many legislators are trying to impose heavy restrictions on US Citizens to own, buy, sell, carry, and use guns. The Federal Government’s restrictions endanger law-abiding US Citizens. Gun-free zones do not make US Citizens more safe. Gun-free zones are like a bullseye for criminals. They tell them that they can go into one of the gun-free zones and rob the establishment inside, while unopposed by anyone else. The infamous Sandy Hook Shooting occurred in a gun-free zone. An armed person inside the building would have prevented the tragic deaths of 20 children. Almost every single mass-shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone (such as: Columbine, San Bernardino, Virginia Tech, both of the Fort Hood shootings, and Aurora Theater to name a few). In fact, if the establishments of the aforementioned six shootings were not gun-free zones, the lives of 89 people could have been saved. Despite this, the State and Federal Government are still creating gun-free zones, which not only infringes upon the people’s right to use a firearm, but it also creates multiple tragic mass

Show More
Related
264 Words | 2 Pages

The Constitution came to fruition as an answer for the issues and numerous shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Not every person concurred with the Constitution or even the said issues emerging from the Articles of Confederation. These people were called Anti-Federalists and their thoughts would not be as effective as the thoughts of the Federalists, since Anti-Federalist thought's reflected numerous qualities of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution should have been endorsed with a specific end goal to conjure change and solvethe issues of the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists had the plans to make the country the best is could be, and also sufficiently giving rights to citizens.

Read More
668 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
358 Words | 2 Pages

The composers of the U.S. Constitution needed to empower government activity; the designers of the Texas Constitution needed to incapacitate government activity. While the U.S. Constitution makes a unitary official that packs official power in the president, the Texas Constitution makes a plural official that scatters official power over numerous chose workplaces, along these lines dividing the official branch of government and averting control over the official branch from gathering in any one individual or office. One purpose of intrigue, be that as it may, concern the CEO's energy to veto bills go by the governing body. The detail veto in the Texas Constitution permits the senator to veto particular things contained inside apportionments

Read More
1626 Words | 7 Pages

The United States Constitution has created much debate since the moment it was conscripted. It has been argued that Constitution of the United States is a document that was drafted in response to the evolution of society. Others have argued that the creation of the Constitution was made as an effort to create a strong national government that was capable of exercising real authority and preservation of ideals in the revolution. The American Constitution is seen as being reactionary because the founders of the Constitution wanted to react to change in restoration of the previous state. The U.S. Constitution is considered reactionary because one should consider the events, documents, and people who participated in the era of the Constitution.

Read More
481 Words | 2 Pages

They needed to debate in each state to decide if the state was voting for or against the Constitution and the new government. The Anti-Federalists thought the new Constitution gave the Federal government too much power over the states. They believed that Congress was given an absurd amount of power as well. Anti-Federalists figured the powers of the branches wouldn’t be separated well.

Read More
333 Words | 2 Pages

In 1787, the Constitution of the United States was being written by delegates from 12 states; however, it took several months for the Constitution to be approved in order to replace the Articles of Confederation (Bill of Rights Institute., 2017). After much consideration, the constitution was set up to include three separate powers of government so that they could not have total control. These forms of government included the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch was created to enforce the laws, the legislative branch created the laws and was the most powerful, and the judiciary determines if the laws were unconstitutional while upholding them.

Read More
338 Words | 2 Pages

Even though the Articles have some major flaws, the Constitution should not be approved because of its own dangers it brings. For one, we Americans just spent years fighting for our independence from Britain due to the unfair treatment inflicted Britain’s strong government. If we approve the Constitution, our own central government would become much stronger, and potentially we could end up in the same situation once again. Additionally, we broke away from Britain because many people disliked the idea of a King in charge. Under the Constitution, a president would be elected and given four years of rule; in this long period of time, a president could easily take his power and authority over the army to unfairy govern the States, lead us into

Read More
751 Words | 4 Pages

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia in 1787, they sought to establish a government that would not only satisfy the current needs of the nation and guard against tyranny, but serve as a guide for future generations as well. The Constitution they drafted continues to shape our country and define our government today, but the Framers could not have possibly predicted all future threats to democracy and liberty that would eventually present themselves. Although measures were taken to prevent the concentration of authority from being held by one individual or one group of individuals, such as the creation of separate branches of government that would check the power of one another, the rise of populist demagogues in the last century has raised the question of whether or not the

Read More
313 Words | 2 Pages

I believe the constitution created a just government, threes pieces of reasons for my claim are Impeachment, Congress has power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, Ability to amend the constitution. To begin, the Senate has the sole power of impeachment to remove the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the united states for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, Section 4). The importance of impeachment is to remove the corrupt and wrong doers from positions of power. With this you can make sure that no one is above the law, no matter the position you hold.

Read More
680 Words | 3 Pages

It is said that “…every public mass shooting In the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns” (Lott, N.d. para. 2). Massive shootings happen where people tend to be either more vulnerable or have a least option of defending themselves.

Read More
931 Words | 4 Pages

Three of the deadliest mass shootings in US modern history have happened in the last five months and people are searching for a change. Churches, concerts, schools, and other gun free zones are no longer safe for citizens of America, but why? Part of the country believes it’s the result of such easy accessibility to guns and by placing restriction on certain types of guns and certain people from obtaining guns, the problem will diminish. The other half of the country believes allowing more people to have guns, such as teachers, then we will be able to protect ourselves and put fear into the criminal's mind, therefore diminishing the problem as well. This conflict can be traced all the way back to November 22, 1963, shortly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Read More
758 Words | 4 Pages

In 2013, after the Sandy Hook shooting, the Firearm Safety Act was passed in Maryland, which limited authorization to own assault rifles, limited magazines, and required people to get fingerprinted and to go through training before purchasing a gun. And yet we see the rates increasing. But looking closer at the bill, there are many loopholes. For instance, it established an exception to the prohibition against carrying a deadly weapon on public school property. This makes it clear that though an effort has been made, there still aren’t sufficient gun control laws in

Read More
806 Words | 4 Pages

After the appalling Las Vegas shooting, many more anti-gun activists are calling for additional gun-control measures, which they believe will make the U.S safer. They also explain their rationales on why the Second Amendment should be modified or even abolished. But, as Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”(Haskins) Although gun control has been seen to be a facile correction to the gun violence, many evidence have shown otherwise. Having laws to prevent guns to be bought will not prevent anything from happening and will affect mainly two types of people.

Read More
444 Words | 2 Pages

To them gun free zones are just easy places to score, it’s a fact. Also even if we could ban guns without guns coming in from other countries, like drugs do, it’s been proven that guns can be replaced with more deadly weapons, and you can even make bombs, guns in your basement, it’s that easy. Overall more guns will lower crime and make the United States of American a much safer place. More gun control, the banning of guns, will result in higher crime and make American a much more dangerous place. What would you rob, a bank with no guards (gun control), or a bank with guards (no gun control)?

Read More
1017 Words | 5 Pages

It hasn't had a mass shooting since”(1). However, just because banning some types of guns works in other parts of the world, it may not in the United States. Another reason putting restrictions on weapons may not work is that it might take guns out of the hands of the wrong people, such as law-abiding citizens. Remember, the United States has much more guns already in circulation than any other place on the globe. For a solution to the issue, gun control activists should strive for better relationships with gun rights activists and push for better surveillance on potential terrorists and

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

Related Topics

Open Document