Individual Rights Of The Citizens

On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates from the thirteen colonies elegantly signed their names on the United States Constitution. Even as the signers read and marveled over their written documentation of our new government, they realized problems could still emerge in the Constitution that would need to be addressed. To solve this dilemma, the delegates came up with a way that the Constitution could be changed so that future generations could patch up any holes they found in this important document. These changes are called Amendments, and today there are a total of 27 of them. Each Amendment is crucial to our Constitution, but which one is the most important? It’s strongly believed that

The Federalists and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

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 primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

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

We of this country want only the best for our budding nation, do we not? We all want our country to grow strong, to prove that it will be strong, not only in spite of its newness but because of it. We are an innovation, an ingot in the forge—we are ushering in the dawn of an era with little more than philosophical ideals to guide us, and it is inevitable that we stumble as we blaze our trail through history. Yet every mistake comes with lessons learnt, so that each step is better-grounded than the last. Such is the matter of our Articles of Confederation and the proposed Constitution. The Articles did well to solidify our nation as an independent and sovereign entity, but managed little more than that. Our states squabble amongst themselves,

During the time period in which the Constitution was crafted, in 1787, there were two different types of people, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were people who were in favor of the United States Constitution and supported its ratification; they also believed in a strong central government. Key Federalists included Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were people who opposed the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and did not like the idea of a strong central government. Some important Anti-Federalists included John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee. In the following paper I will be discussing the different views of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists when it comes to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and will be analyzing specific civil liberties and discussing the pros and cons of them.

One thing that the Anti-Federalists were adamant about was the creation of a Bill of Rights, as to make sure that the rights of the people were preserved. “Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security, of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than, that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the constitutions of our own states; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high and when an appeal was made to the people to form constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is therefore the more astonishing, that this grand security, to the rights of the people,

Two groups—Federalists and Antifederalists—had opposing views about the newly proposed Constitution and on how to construct a new form of government effectively. The Federalists, on one hand, desired a strong national government and the government run by educated citizens. The Federalists believed that it wasn’t necessary for the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights because the government would already have the duty to protect the rights of the people with what the Constitution already offered on its own plan of government.On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists did not agree with the Constitution because they believed that it should have a Bill of Rights, and because they feared that giving more power to the central government would take

During the late 1700s, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote an array of essays, called The Federalist Papers, to promote ratification of the Constitution. Not only did it provide help the nation to understand its government, but also show how liberty was made possible. Madison’s papers No. 10 and No. 51 may perhaps be the most famous of them all because of the significance of fractions and separation of powers. They elaborate on the necessity of a bigger republic, which, in turn, will even out the views of the majority and the minority.

Direct democracy is a government in which the people directly elect their officials, and vote on the laws which govern them. When a nation has a representative democracy, the people’s officials are elected to act in their stead (Text Pg. 24). The politicians are empowered by the people to govern and pass laws. A constitutional democracy is one in that the politicians are representatives of the people (Text Pg. 21). The politicians acknowledge that there are limitations on their power, and that the people are sovereign.

Human rights are inherent to being human and essentially a right obtained by any being born in the world. These rights do not discriminate whether one was born in the United States or in Mexico. Essentially, they are what it means to be a human being, not if you are a citizen to a specific country. Lawful permanent residents of the United States prior to 1996 were eligible for public benefits programs suck as the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), all on terms similar to those of native-born citizens (Capps, 2002). Bill Clinton’s administration enacted Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) in which significantly

Become a citizen of one of the best nations in the world is a privilege that not many people have. I’m talking about the United States of America. If you are an U.S natural born citizen you have rights and responsibilities that protect you based on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. People who are in the position to become U.S. citizens gain the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship as natural born American with the only restriction that they can’t be eligible for President of the United States.

The Declaration of the Rights of man and Citizen is a document of French constitutional history. This declaration listed the rights of an individual, which guaranteed the rights of ¨liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression”. These are the supposed rights of human nature. The purpose of the government, in this document, was to preserve these rights. The document also declared the sovereignty of the people and equality of men and includes the concept of natural rights and the social contract. It is organized into seventeen articles that state each right of man. It is said in the passage that the document greatly corresponds to the American Declaration of Independence. It also includes

Our country was built and fought for over the theories of natural rights and personal freedoms. One of the only real reasons that we fought the British during the American Revolution was because we were devoid of these rights by the British king, George the 3rd. We were taxed heavily without representation by our own government and the theory that you cannot rule from afar. Soldiers were quartered in homes across the nation and you couldn’t buy tea without paying a tax. Our country was literally founded on the principles of natural rights and personal freedom.