More handpicked essays just for you.
Describe the U.S. Constitution and the process of ratification essay
Us constitution history essay
Importance of the bill of Rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The primary argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they imagined that the administration would be made would be too effective and they would simply be making ready for another government like the one that they had quite recently contended so energetically to free themselves from England. They likewise needed to include a Bill of Rights before endorsing the constitution and not afterward. The Pros are that the report had expressed to give trust against the unfeeling and unlawful demonstration of decision the american colonies. Freedom of development which is under Article IV. This area said the security and interminable associations and organization among the natives of the rose country.
A bill of rights is necessary to hold up the constitution and the people's rights as it will be used in future generations. Yates then goes on to explain, “It's not true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the federal Constitution than in the State constitutions...being the most recent will replace every other agreement that went before it. Since it's a plan of government ratified by the people, it will be superior to all other governments that went before it. “ Being more recent than any other agreement, the federal constitution will replace all other agreements in use before it, making it even more important to establish a bill of rights. It is important to design a bill of rights in our current constitution, seeing as it will replace
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.
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.
Even if ratification is in place there should be a Bill of Rights so citizens don’t abandon their rights. “The necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before” In my opinion the government should be strong enough to bring justice to criminal acts, defend the country and still have the rights of citizens abandoning their rights to absolute power. I am in between two different beliefs because, maybe we need a government that instills order, peace and can win a war, but also a limited government to where everything in a state or place isn’t made with
After the Revolutionary War the thirteen colonies wanted a government to replace the British system they wanted overthrown. So they came up with the Articles of Confederation. The articles went into effect in 1781, but were short lived because they had too many flaws in them to work effectively. Even though they went into effect there was still a problem the colonies had and that was that they had no real national leadership.
1. The Constitution originally lacked a Bill of Rights. George Mason from Virginia presented a proposal to add a bill of rights to the document. But his offer was voted down.
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.
Addressing the secession of many southern states, Lincoln said “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” The U.S. could not be legally broken up. The Constitution does not allow for such a form of divide. The U.S. already tried operating as separate states in the form of the Articles of Confederation. An attempt like that has already been made, with little success.
The Constitutional Convention, a meeting of state delegates from May of 1787 to September 1787, resulted in the creation of a new constitution and therefore a new government for the United States of America. While representation was debated over at the Constitutional Convention, issues that created much more controversy were the distribution of power between branches, and between state and federal governments. Under the Articles of Confederation, representation in the national government was satisfactory, however the creation of a national government that welded a significant amount of power changed how each state wanted to be represented in the national government. Delegates, mainly from the larger New England states, at the Constitutional Convention were concerned over the matter of how small states were represented when compared with large states. As many plans suggested, representation based on population favored the larger states, and also the states with a higher percentage of
e Constitution, there are several rules and regulations that are clearly stated that allow the government to know exactly how to rule the country. However, the creators of the Constitution also left somethings out so that future leaders could determine and interpret laws in a way where they were not really restricted to doing something one specific way. This helps a lot when it comes to the changing of times because the time during in which the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the environment of the nation was much different from what it currently is today. The Constitution, from then to now, has barely been changed which truly shows how well thought out it was compared to say the earlier government called the Articles of Confederation,
David Waldstreicher, an American historian, has claimed that the American Constitution is a ‘”pro-slavery’” document in his article published in 2015. In Waldstreicher's article and Sean Wilentz article also published in 2015 they both state that the Constitution refused to mention slavery as property and according to Abraham Lincoln in Wilentz’s article “Lincoln asserted that the framers had operated ‘on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man’”. The American Constitution is a pro-slavery document that even though not wholly stating components within it that would entirely abolish slavery, but it also would not say that humans cannot be determined property. The U.S. Constitution is a pro-slavery
The ratification of the US Bill of Rights took place in 1789. The Bill of Rights supply citizens of the US with inalienable rights that they are born with and acquire if they immigrate. Since it was ratified, there have been several occasions in which these rights have been infringed upon during times of conflict, in which the United States government attempts to shield the nation from conflicting issues inside or even outside the country because of fear. The government believes that this unconstitutional action to restrict citizens’ rights must be done to protect citizens of the United States, but in an attempt to protect others, many become mistreated.
During and immediately after the Revolutionary War, the founding Fathers of America sought to establish a republic on a scale never seen before and to do so had to experiment with new laws and political ideas. Though it was obvious that the first law of the land, The Articles of Confederation, were too weak for the new nation, the development of the new constitution in the late 1780s sparked fierce political debates over the power of the new central government. Even during the debate over the new constitution, it was merely political factions fighting over ideas of government. It would not be until Washington’s first term in office that actual political parties emerged. It was the differences between Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton,
A huge part of our nation’s rights and power are mostly expressed in the constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The constitution is a core aspect of the government because it has built foundations for our citizens and nation’s leaders to follow. The constitutions consist of amendments such as the bill of rights which includes the first ten amendments. Since the constitution is such an important factor of our government today, it is important to have a secure and difficult amendment process to be sure that each amendment has a purpose and help establish a stable government. The amendment process involves having both the houses of Congress and the states vote.
