Constitution Controversy

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

In the article, “Framed Up What the Constitution gets wrong” written by Hendrik Hertzberg, Robert Dahl’s perspective on the United States Constitution, he is in favor of the “American system does a better job than the democratic alternatives, and quite a

In May of 1787, fifty-five delegates from all states except for Rhode Island held a convention in Philadelphia (Henretta, 2012, pg.184). The convention later known as the Philadelphia Convention. The goal was to determine the future of the Republican Government. The nationalist composed of an elite group of well-educated men. Unfortunately, the most influential members such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry would not be attending (Henretta, 2012, pg. 185). The convention would back down from the demands of delegates from southern states. Without the importation of African slaves continued their states would not be part of the Union (Henretta, 2012, pg. 187). Leaving the southern states free to determine the legal ramifications of slavery in their own states. For the sake of more arguments, not for lack of concern. Delegates recognized the contradiction of slavers and the republican principle, but assume that it would eventually die out.

The colonies spent 400 million fighting against a form of government for the freedom to make there own decisions. This could be the reason it took a long period of time to form the constitution. The Constitution was put in the place of the Articles of Confederation. This was put in place to guard against tyranny from happening. Tyranny is when you have one person has all the power and mistreated it. The Constitution guards against tyranny by making sure the states have power of local things, power is split with the three branches of the government, the three branches of the government have a little control over each other, and that large and small states have equal say and no small state would be left out.

“Jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public councils for the good government of the Union. In a words, the confederation appears to me to be little more than a shadow without the substance.” George Washington. There were many conflicts that arose during the Philadelphia Convention and many left unresolved. Some of the different conflicts that were addressed during the Philadelphia convention this included: Larger states v.s the smaller states, Three- fifths clause and fugitive slave clause between the North and the South.

From May 14th through September 17th, they considered plans and proposals for creating a stronger, more centralized system of government. On September 17, 1787, the Convention signed the Constitution and forwarded it to Congress; on September 28th, Congress sent the document on to the states, which were to organize ratification conventions. From the autumn of 1787, through the summer of 1788, sustained debates were carried on in the press--through newspapers, broadsides, and pamphlets--and in person at such venues as town meetings, coffee houses, and taverns. Both the advocates of the Constitution, known as “Federalists,” and its critics, called “Anti-Federalists” tried to persuade voters to support or reject it. The debates in New York City’s press between the Anti-Federalist “Brutus”--Robert Yales--and the Federalist “Publius”--Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison--were particularly intense, and would influence public opinion across the new nation .

issues of all kind. The country I was born in did not guarantee freedom of

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

Although the Constitution was created to form a better union and make citizens feel protected and equalized, it brought a lot of attention to itself. The debate over the ratification of the Constitution split Americans into factions: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the ones who supported The Constitution; on the other hand, Anti-Federalists were not for The Constitution. The Bill of Rights was one of the major issues being debated (Document 5-6).