The move from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a consistent one, and settling the issues of the Articles of Confederation required a progression of protracted level-headed discussions both amid and after the convention. In any case, one thing was sure, something must be changed. Fifty-Five Delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to decide how best to change the current archive. The ratification of the constitution was very important to the states and I would vote to adopt the it. The constitution enabled and built up the Federal Government.
Each party present during the drafting of the Constitution had their own ideas about what it should accomplish. As a result, it was very difficult to formulate a document that appeased all groups and parties, who often voiced their opinions of how it should be written. The U.S. Constitution was the father of many worries concerning the rights of the people, the role of government, and the balance between the aristocrats and poor, the government and the people. The Federalists, or supporters of the Constitution, were not completely satisfied with the task they were given. They were supposed to revise the old Articles of Confederation, but they felt like it needed to be completely rewritten.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
One opponent of this rewrite is that it is the foundation of our state. While it is not of much order, people believe that it is what has made our country succeed, in some cases. Another is that in order to rewrite the constitution we have to have both political parties represented and they must agree to some manner, which is
The United States Constitution was created in September 17, 1787 to replace the Articles of Confederation. Due to arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the two groups decided to add amendments to the Constitution to appease the Anti-Federalists. The condition was that two-thirds of the states had to approve the amendment before it’s added to the constitution. These conditions are still held today and there are now 27 amendments. Amendments in the constitution are important because they give natural rights to people.
According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”.
The Constitution is a counter-transformation on the grounds that the Constitutional Convention was a meeting to totally update the Articles of Confederation, and that record fundamentally illustrated the administration at that period in time. Since an insurgency is a move towards a changed government, that would make the Constitution an unrest, and it is countering the disappointments of the Articles of Confederation. It is additionally a counter-transformation since a few provisions were placed in it to counteract uprisings, for example, that of Daniel (Shays ' Rebellion). Counter-transformation, in that sense, implied the Constitution was attempting to anticipate future upheavals. The Constitutional Convention additionally settled a legislature
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
The constitution and the Bill of Rights have made drastic changes in how this country has developed over these short years. The people on both sides of the arguments have their own opinions. The antifederalists are not use to equal rights. They want one ruler and no equality. The federalists want the
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil
The Constitution of the United States was formed 223 years ago. Since 1787, a lot has changed. We grew as a country, technology advanced, and we elected 43 different presidents. One of witch, being the first African-American President in history. Due to its age, some may argue that the Constitution is irrelevant to today’s problems.
The argument for revising Article V and making the Constitution easier to amend revolves around the idea that it is practically impossible to amend the Constitution with Article V as it currently is written. Nearly all of the 50 state constitutions can be amended under easier procedures than those in place under Article V and do not require as many obstacles to triumph. Since requiring a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate only completes one half of Article V, the additional condition for ratification requires ¾ of state legislatures support (75 legislative houses in 38 states), which is an extremely extensive task. This means that a proposed amendment can fail because of only 13 state legislative house in 13 different states. The
Two suggestions both originate in the second article involved the presidency. One was to rid of the electoral college and the other to change the way vice presidential candidates are elected. Protecting constitutional rights is a lot more of a complicated idea than figuring out what could be changed in the Constitution. Because the text of the Constitution can often be interpreted in different ways, it is hard to decipher what the rights we exactly have
One of the three most important amendment is the Second Amendment that Guarantees the right to bear arms. This amendment is important because it gives people the right to have guns that help protect us. Guns also help us hunt and for most people that is a food supply. About three percent of adults own half of America's gun. Thirty two percent of American household own guns.
The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.
