Bill Of Rights Vs Civil Rights

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

The bill of rights is a popular document that was not originally in the US constitution, but anti federalists wanted a bill of rights really bad because supposedly they were afraid of a strong central government. They did not want another king so some states refused the constitution until there was a bill of rights. Along with being afraid of a central government they wanted a limited government so that government could not control them. The anti federalists also thought the government would not protect their individual rights enough so they wanted a bill of rights.

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

“The purpose that brought the Fourteenth Amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.” A state and its capabilities all come from within itself; therefore, what brings a nation forth is its ability to unite for a cause and to consistently keep the members of its nation steadfast in its belief. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified not only to guarantee “equal protection of the laws” , but to also guarantee a more prosperous country in which its members are not distinguished based on gender, race, culture, ethnicity or religion. Consequently, every citizen is given a set of rights and the people are reassured that these rights define a government by the people for the people , but during the 1800s, the law was not just nor equal.

In 1787, the passage of the Constitution by the states were not by any means certain. There were two sides to the ratification of the Constitution: Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were against ratifying it, while the Federalists were dead set on trying to ratify the constitution. One of the major issues constantly being debated between these two parties was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists thought this addition was unnecessary, because they believed that the Constitution would only have limitations on the government, instead of limiting the people. While the Federalists thought the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, Anti-Federalists explained how they thought the Constitution gave

"Throughout the years the constitution and the laws have made a tremendous impact in society. White men were privileged with all their rights since they were born. Women and men of color however were not, and they had to fight for their rights throughout the years. The Articles of confederation showed how the states had more power than the government did. In document two it states, “ urging to reject conservative attempts to repeal a law that set in motion an end to slavery.” (E,126) This shows how African American’s had to wait many years for laws to pass and give them freedom. They had the same rights as the White men after the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments were passed. Women had to wait longer and finally got their right to vote when

The constitution laid the groundwork for America's citizens giving essential rights to everyone. That would have been the ideal America; Humans are flawed and there of course has to be some form of disagreement. Throughout America's existence there have been arguments, public unrest, deadly altercations and disagreements when it comes to people's rights. An instance of this can be shown through Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign. He dreamed of abolishing the mentality of the south not allowing blacks to vote. Dr. King also wanted to unite people not matter their skin color. Dr. King was another activist who contributed to the Civil Rights Act being passed. Due to Dr. King's acts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was established to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States.

In Document 5 Amos Singletree wrote, “ These lawyers and men of learning and monied men……….gloss over matters so smoothly………..make us poor illiterate people swallow the pill, expect to get congress to themselves…….and get all the money and power into their own hands.” He was saying that the Constitution was put into place to indirectly hand over all the power to the men who are rich and well-educated. Furthermore, they would gloss over matters of importance to win the favor of the men who weren’t as educated or rich. Next, the Anti-Federalists believed that the constitution would essentially take away most of the rights the people had. In Document 4 Patrick Henry claims, “ The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of press…...are rendered insecure.”

In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.

“We the People...” Words that all Americans should recognize being in the United States Constitution; As supreme as it may portray out to be yet it comes with many imperfections that unsettles the states and greatly affected African Americans, leading future decisions to more disagreements throughout the course of history. The United States were beginning to form itself up since the Constitution was created, it granted the people the power to rule themselves without the federal government getting too involved in State affairs; The Constitution was indeed foundational for the United States so it could continue on forth, especially with the formation of political parties forming up their views. There are the main issues that unfold involving the all these matters, it shows itself with how human rights lacked for African Americans during this time, the complications between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, separation of powers and the States lacking power compared to the Federal government. Whether or not the situations were impossible; things could have been better for everyone, after all the people should have the power.

Several different viewpoints on how the Constitution should be shaped can often cause conflicting outcomes. The main topic the argument is if a bill of rights is really necessary. Federalist, a person who supports a system of government, and the Anti-Federalist, who opposes the creation of a stronger government, both have strong feelings towards the idea of a bill of rights. Federalist label the bill "unnecessary" to the Constitution, while Anti-Federalist says it is exactly what the constitution needs. While the Federalist did make some interesting points, the Anti-Federalist won the argument regarding the need for a bill of rights.

The constitution is the foundation of America. It has the country’s beliefs and rights within it. In 1791, the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because the Anti Federalists refused to ratify the constitution till the Bill was added. The Bill of Rights not only guarantees citizens rights but also it ensures a limited government. The 14th amendment was later created in 1868 which guaranteed due process of law and equal protection under the law. The Bill of Rights and 14th amendment was made in hope that the government would learn their limitations and wouldn’t interfere with a person’s rights. It was basically the rules set for the government to follow. However as time goes by, the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights has lessened.

After the American Revolution, the founders set up a form of government under the Articles of Confederation. Eventually, this system used to run a nation would fail drastically thus leading to the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America. The founders saw the need for a stronger federal government and the Constitution embodied that concept much better than the Articles. However, the increase of the government’s powers was not a universally favorable idea. This sparked debate between the federalists and anti-federalists on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. While the federalists pushed for the ratification of the constitution, the anti-federalists believed the government should have limitations placed on it that

The feeling of freedom and opportunity is something that workers, farmers, and slaves dreamed of their whole lives. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document that brought together all of the nation’s governments under one branch in 1788 and was intended to create freedom and equality for everyone. However, it did not quite work out that way. The Founding Fathers were the people who wrote the preamble. The Preamble to the United States Constitution is the introduction to the Constitution, and it is hypocritical because it excluded a number of people, such as farmers, enslaved African Americans and workers when it was formed.

It is June of 1789. Nearly a year has passed since the ratification of the Constitution. Imagine your children and wife waking you up and asking you what is for dinner. You are not sure what to say because you lost your farm due to paying off debts. This endures and then something tragic transpires. Your youngest child perishes. In the 1780s there were two diverse types of people with dissimilar lifestyles. These encompassed Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the minority of the population at the time and are on behalf of making a stronger unified government by making a new structure of government. Anti-Federalists make up the majority of the population and want to