Arguments Against The Constitution Pros And Cons

“The Constitution is a proposal as big as a change as the document which separated us from Great Britain.” (Doc. 4). The new proposal of the United States Constitution came as a big to surprise to many people about how big of a change the new document actually was, but a big change is exactly what the country needed to solve some of the very important problems if faced. Since the country was in such a major debt and had no way to pay it back, things were only going to get worse, the debt we still owed to Spain had left them still controlling land

On July 3rd, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the thirteen United States of America from Great Britain. Determined to unify the thirteen colonies, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. Although the articles did not prevent the United States from winning independence, the innate flaws of the articles became apparent in the years following the revolution. The problems of the weak, purely legislative national government became too prevalent for agents of the revolution, such as James Madison and George Washington. Madison and Washington were strong supporters of a federal, or national, constitution, and on June 21, 1788, congress ratified the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, violated the “Revolutionary Ideology” and the will of the American people.

The first way that the Constitution helped with the weaknesses of the United States were the different ways it made passing laws more fair. When amending a document the Articles of Confederation needed 13 out of 13 people to approve of the document. The Constitution provided a more reasonable way by having ⅔ of both houses and ¾ of the state legislature. This is a better method because not 100% of people are going to agree on everything. The same type of thing worked when passing laws. 9/13 people needed to approve in the Articles of Confederation while it’s now 50% +1 of both houses plus the signature of the President. This allows for things to be more fair and it makes sure everyone in power somewhat agrees on what is going on and not just a couple of people are deciding on what the citizens new laws will be.

The Constitution should change with society. Like all societies, ours changes with time. Like it or not, things will be different in the future. Although we agree with things we are doing now, we may not in the future. Our constitution is ment to be part of a lasting government in the land of the free. If the USA really wishes to be held up to that title, its people must be able to agree, and if needed, change the Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 marked the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. The ratification argument led to disagreements between the Federalists, who wanted to approve the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed the document. The latter believed that the new system forced by the Constitution failed to protect the individual rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

Americans elect two-thirds of the government, both the president and congress. As for the supreme court justices, the president nominates someone and congress reviews them. This is how the system should stay, for the American public would not choose the best people if justices had to run and be elected.

Summary: Some of the issues were the people that denied to agree or support the constitution. Some states did not favor the way the government limited the power for the federal government because they were scared it would overrule state laws and disliked how citizens were able to control as well. Analysis: There were issues because several of states took quite a while to ratify the constitution. The constitution needed at least 9 out of 13 colonies to ratify, however the states did not support the new system. It took 10 months for 9 colonies to ratify. Although, it took almost an year the constitution was

The United States Constitution is set up for democracy like the colonist wanted. The constitution prevents anarchy and protects your rights. As a citizen you are protected by the Bill of Rights. We are entitled to freedom of speech, religion, and have dual process. We have guaranteed rights, separated powers of government to prevent tyranny, and we elect our representatives under The United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is set up to keep up with changing times.

When the founding fathers realized the articles were going to bring the US to chaos, they called a convention in Philadelphia to draft the U.S. Constitution as we know it. This Constitution brought popular sovereignty and republicanism, the ability to collect national taxes and proportional voting. Without these crucial aspects, our world today would be a much different place today, but not for the better. That is why if I had been a U.S. citizen at the time of both the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification debates, I would have supported the Constitutional

Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

The constitution first started to provide protection over tyranny in the summer of 1787 where fifty-five delegates met in Philadelphia to help readjust the national government for the better. The task of each representative was to come together to create ideas without letting one person or any one group be in hold of too much power in order for the central government to grow stronger. The constitution had help led by the Articles of Confederation with their influence on not having a court system to make the state force a pay on taxes. The main challenge was to generate a Constitution that would be strong enough to retain possession of power for each state to a minimum so not a single person was the only one to have power or control. The guard on tyranny was supported in 4 ways federalism,separation of powers, checks and balances and small/large state compromises.

One of the main problems with the constitution is what some may argue that the role of the president was not very thought of and linked to the constitution, therefore jeopardizing the nation to a dysfunctional and dangerous presidency. Throughout the history of American government, there have been a couple presidencies which have managed to gain high power and disregard the wellbeing of the nation, behave inappropriately and even unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the cornerstone of America. It has lasted longer than any republican government on Earth. The constitution has lasted far longer than the framers of the constitution had expected. The constitution should not be changed because it is fundamentally sound and applicable to today’s society. That is not to say that there isn’t some changes warranted, but the changes to the constitution are allowed and the process to make these changes via amendment are spelled out within the constitution itself. Currently there are have been approximately 11,000 proposals within congress to amend the Constitution since 1789 of those thirty three have been passed. (Senate.gov)