Ratification Of The Constitution

Both ¨ Americans Construction: A Biography¨, and The United States Constitution: A Graphic Adaptation¨ can help the readers understand the steps of ratification of the constitution. They both have their strengths and weakness with information. The strengths of ¨A Biography¨ is that is has more information about the ratification of the constitution. The ¨ Graphic Adaption¨ shows you more examples and graphic imagery about the ratification of the constitution. Each text represents the same unique information but they just represent them in two different ways.

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

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 Constitution has been operative since 1789 after the ratification of nine states (American Vision and Values, Page 52). Today many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a governmental framework, defining three branches and giving powers to the government and others to the states. It also guarantees the rights of the people. It took two and one-half years for the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution. This ratification period was one of great debate and produced a series of essays complied into The Federalist. Authored by John Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the ratification debate in New York, they tried to get public support for the Constitution. Thus began the first

It was crucial for the colonists to figure out a way to live and work together. This was their first time making decisions without being commanded by a king or Queen and it was important to formulate and then implement a plan of action. (Schmidt, 2017). The idea of a constitution was thus created for the betterment of those living in America and has served as a rallying cry, a defense mechanism, and a safeguard for all citizens within the United States. This irreplaceable document has survived throughout time not only on paper but also in the hearts of many Americans. The Constitution of the United States officially went into effect on “September 17,1787” (Schmidt,2017, pg.35). The greatness of this constitution is still seen today as it serves as a solid base, with room allowed for re-examination or change if needed. Every now and then an issue may arise and the laws set forth into the constitution are reexamined and an amendment may be set

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are two very important guidelines of government that shaped the political minds of the Americans. Mainly because these guidelines limited, or expanded the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The Articles of Confederation were a series of laws that gave more power to the state government than the federal government. As a result, the federal government could not enforce laws or levy taxes. After Shay’s Rebellion, the Founding Fathers realized that a change was necessary. So the Constitution was created. The most important change of the Constitution was that the majority of power was then shifted into the hands of the federal or central government. This allowed the federal

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

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

After the Founding Fathers of America wrote our Constitution there was one more step they had to each achieve in order for it to go into effect: ratifying it. In order to ratify the Constitution nine out of the thirteen states had to agree to adopt it. The process of ratifying the Constitution turned into a debate between two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalist.

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.

On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a compromise engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the Constitution's legitimacy.

Question: What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and the opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the U.S Constitution?

The ratification of the U.S Constitution was a labor-intensive and stressful procedure. The reason for this is because the 13 states split into two different groups based on how they felt about the issue: the federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the U.S Constitution whereas the Anti-Federalists opposed it. The debate over this topic included reasons about power and political stances. The major arguments used by each side in the debates over the ratification for the U.S. Constitution were whether or not the central government should have more power, whether or not the country would be disunited after its approval, and whether or not natural rights will be in jeopardy.

The United States served 5 years under the Articles of Confederation, during this period the framers noticed that it had multiple faults in it such as a weak central leadership, economically dysfunctional, and had multiple legislative inefficiencies. Eventually all these issues were addressed during the Constitutional Convention which further led to ratification to the Constitution.

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.