The Pros And Cons Of The US Constitution

My Dear Fellow Colleague,
In our prior encounter, our dear friend brought up a matter that that has been bearing on his mind and soul and I now write you with my thoughts on the matter. I speak of the Constitution that was just recently adopted at the Philadelphia Convention. I know this matter is a strain on our friendship, since you have such a strong approval of the Articles of Confederation. But I beg you to hear me out on my thoughts and opinions of our Constitution and how they might be ratified to our benefit.
As patriots, we fought long and hard to gain our independence from Great Britain. Countless times we put our life on the line for something we truly believed in. On the fourth of July in the year of 1776 we declared our separation

On February 21 in Philadelphia, the Constitution was introduced when delegates representing each state gathered to reform the Articles of Confederation. (U.S. pg. 33) The Constitution was introduced to include with an emphasis on the people of the United States instead of the states. The Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States..” The Preamble acknowledges the people of the United States, but where in the Constitution are the rights of the people mentioned. Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison to discuss his views of the constitution and the omission of a bill of rights. He states there were several things he did not like; “First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restrictions against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matter of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.” (essential, 281) to conclude his thoughts on the Constitution and the need for bill of rights he states “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 or rest on interference.” (essential, 281) Let me remind you, the Declaration of

I do not suggest that we replace our current Constitution, but amend it to include a list of rights that are bestowed upon the people of the United States. The Anti-federalists might see the absences of a bill of rights as a reason to promote favor to the Articles of Confederation. But they are falsely using the absence of a bill of rights. They use the absence to promote state’s rights and argue that by bestowing individual rights, the power of states would diminish (origins, 14) those opposed to the bill of rights also say it is unnecessary because constitutionally the states will protect the liberty and rights of the people. Our dear friend, James Madison argues back that that while this might be true for some states, others have defective bills of rights and still others have no bills of rights. And in this case, the states are not protecting their people and their rights. Because a bill of rights were not in place is some states own constitutions, Madison states that the Constitution set for from the Continental Congress should include an amendment that states “no state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This amendment would insure that the rights of the people were protected by the national government regardless if that particular state protected through their own constitution. (origins