ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of The Bill Of Rights

948 Words4 Pages

In the Fall of 1787, upon reading the proposed Constitution of the United States that had recently been sent to the colonies for ratification, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “What think you of a Declaration of Rights? Should not such a thing have preceded the model?”1 Jefferson wrote to James Madison later that same year: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”2 In another letter to Madison, Jefferson stated more definitively: I do not like…the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of habeas corpus, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by law of nations.3 Thus, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” had a dilemma in winning ratification of “his” constitution. Should a bill of rights be added to the proposed constitution? Originally opposed to the addition of a bill of rights, Madison, always a true advocate of those rights, eventually accepted that a bill of rights should be adopted. It became necessary to gain acceptance of the proposed Constitution, …show more content…

Many Federalists worried that, if included as part of the Constitution, people would come to believe that these “unalienable rights” were created by the Constitution and not by their Creator and, thus, could be taken

Show More
Related
656 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore, the anti-federalist proposed the Bill of Rights to be added along with the Constitution. The Anti-federalist felt secure with the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because it protects citizens liberty and freedom. In the end, the founding fathers gathered and agreed to add the Bill of Rights when ratifying the Constitution. Furthermore, Anti-federalists were mainly farmers and they feared that under the Constitution economic policies their business will be endanger.

Read More
157 Words | 1 Pages

After the Declaration of Independence in 1787, the Federal Government turned to the creation of the Constitution in which delegates from 13 states convened to make compromises on their beliefs for the betterment of a nation. Although the Bill of Rights was initially not a part of the Constitution, the Federalists thought that it was crucial to ensure ratification of the Constitution. This ratification was one of the main reasons why the Bill of Rights needed to be added. Federalists feared a strong, central government, and created a Bill of Rights in order to prevent government abuse. Others believed that a dominating Government could prohibit rights in the future, which would not necessarily be expressed in the Bill of Rights.

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
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
914 Words | 4 Pages

When writing the Constitution, the Federalists, which included Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, had stated the rights and liberties of the civilians within the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, a federalist, believed that if a Bill of Rights was to be created then the whole idea of republican government would fall apart. As stated in a federalist letter, " [the constitution] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and on this very account would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”(Federalist No. 71, Alexander Hamilton). The Constitution stated that all free people had equal rights. Rights that were implicit, which connected to fixing all the problems within the government and the people.

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

To the highly-valued citizens of the United States of American, we believe in order for our newly-founded country to thrive, our constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the system of government which it has formed must be replaced and a new constitution be adopted. We believe the Articles of Confederation have proven to be ineffective and the source of many hardships in our nation. To strive to solve this significant challenge, we have created and propose a new constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and federal government. As an explanation for our reasoning, this pamphlet has been written to clarify the Articles of Confederation’s weaknesses, how the new constitution can fix these problems, and present how the Constitution

Read More
525 Words | 3 Pages

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. Largely the product of James Madison, the 10 amendments officially became part of the Constitution in 1791, after being approved by Congress in its initial session in 1789. Initially, 12 amendments were adopted by Congress and sent to the states for ratification or rejection; the first two amendments were not approved, thus leaving the 10 amendments as we know them today. Madison 's speech in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, in which he argued persuasively for the insertion of a document to the Constitution that would protect "the great rights of mankind," still stands today as one of the most consequential speeches in the annals

Read More
457 Words | 2 Pages

Ratifying the Constitution Ratifying the Constitution has saved our country from being like England and from not falling apart. Before the constitution we had the articles and those weren’t working out at the time and we weren’t able to fight against rebellions and or against other countries when. We could act faster with the Constitution and we had a checks and balance system and also we had a checks and balances system. We could have acted faster with the constitution instead of wanting around for all states to agree on doing something.

Read More
1106 Words | 5 Pages

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.

Read More
823 Words | 4 Pages

The document outlined the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Personal rights were not a new topic in government at the time the Bill of Rights were written. “James Madison did not come up with these rights on his own. Some were rights that were already included in some of the state’s constitutions that existed before the US Constitution. He also pulled from ideas that were brought up during the state ratifying conventions” (Donnelly 5:00).

Read More
588 Words | 3 Pages

“As Madison confided to Jefferson, "The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion” (Postell, Joseph. “Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights”). James Madison is defending the Bill of Rights’ importance in this quote. The Bill of Rights is important because it gives the individual citizens their rights which the government cannot infringe

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
1915 Words | 8 Pages

Assumptions Are So 1780’s September 17th, 1787 changed the history of the United States of America forever. After month long deliberations the framers, and several other delegates got together to establish a government to benefit most of the states, and its people. As of today America has come quite a long way in terms of sociable acceptable norms. Although the Constitution worked for several years is it still working in the father of the people in today's society?

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Bill Of Rights

Related Topics

Open Document