Constitutional Convention Research Paper

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

“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

The Articles of Confederation were the United State’s first constitution that was drafted in 1776 and set in motion a year later. The Articles of Confederation also known as “The Aoc”, ran the US government successful through the time of the American Revolution. However, the Aoc didn’t permit the national government with the power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, as a result of that all efforts at national cohesion was disheartened. So during the summer of 1787 they decided to create the “Supreme law of the land”, The Constitution. The constitution did everything the Aoc couldn’t do, it established more laws and provided increased federal authority while protecting the basic rights of it’s citizens.

The Constitution wasn’t fair and was poorly made so they had to create a new one. The Congress started off by adding improvements but it needed too many improvements they had to start over. If they hadn't started over the Constitution Would not have been as good, and there would still be poorly written parts. The new constitution was called the Constitutional Convention. People complained that their Liberty was being taken away and they wanted it back the Congress thought about the complaints and decide to consider revising the Constitution. The revising turned into the Constitutional Convention.

In May 1787, the Founding Fathers, who were made up of 55 delegates from one of the 13 states besides Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia for what would come to be called the Constitutional Convention [BRE]. When they met they intended to fix the consitution that was already in place, which was called the Articles of Confederation. This document had many weaknesses which ultimatly led to its downfall: it only had a legislative branch, so it could not hold trials or enforce laws, it could not raise taxes (it was able to raise money, however to do this the legislative branch had to ask the states for funds), it could not draft an army, so the federal government would have to use state militia, it could not control interstate or foreign commmerce,

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.

The Constitutional Convention was held in May 25 1787 in Philadelphia to discuss revising the Article of Confederation. Delegates from the various states met in Philadelphia and George Washington president was elected to preside over Convention. However, the result of convention wasn’t likely what the purpose of convention to revise the Article of Confederation because what it ended up doing could not answer successfully the question of slavery and was creating a new constitution, which was the United States Constitution. There were three plans submitted for government structure which were Virginia, New Jersey, and Connecticut Compromise.

55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.

The debate over the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation has been a long lasting one. In order to create a document that would adequately protect the American people and their interests’ the Founding Fathers embarked on a journey to create a document that would address all of the discrepancies found within the Articles of Confederation Therefore, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, to compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. Second, to analyze the drafting of the Constitution. Third, to compare and contrast the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The founding fathers of the United States Constitution wrote it to be a national law to the whole country; however, research has shown that the founding fathers have stated on several occasions that the Constitution should be revised from time to time in order to better suite the current time period. In “A More Perfect Constitution,” Larry Sabato discusses twenty-three new proposals and revisions that would benefit today’s government. Given these facts, it is a necessary development as America begins the 21st century to call together a constitutional convention in order to discuss Sabato’s new proposals to the Constitution. There are three major revisions that will most benefit the national

Discuss the problems of government in terms of the history of the constitutional convention. What was the Great Compromise and how does this relate to what type of government is best? Does it work (is it workable)? How does it relate to current politics? Would you change anything?

Xlandia is a country in need of a new government. Since the conclusion of World War II, a tyrant has ruled Xlandia. Recently, the tyrant was overthrown and the citizens are in a frenzy. There is an urgency to craft a suitable government for the citizens of Xlandia, a government that will coincide with the education level, work force, and geography of the land. The United Nations has asked us for advice on the arrangement of the new government, and we have considered various government types in order to settle upon a proposal for a new government. A written constitution, an executive leader, has shared power with the rest of the legislative branch, an independent judicial branch, and citizen participation are all fundamental factors for a successful

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.