Ratifying The Constitution Pros And Cons

Each state had to hold a convention after the delegates wrote the Constitution, so the states could decide if they wanted to approve the Constitution. After nine states ratify the Constitution it would go into effect. Some of the states decided to disagree with the Constitution, and therefore it would not be ratified. There was a group of Federalists, and they were the people who thought the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists favored the National government or a Strong Federal Government. Also, the Federalists felt that there must be a stronger central government for the Union to last. They wanted the central government to have powers, such as the power to enforce laws, which the articles did not have. Also, there was a group of anti-federalists that had opposite thoughts of what the Federalists wanted. The Anti-Federalists felt that the Constitution made the government too strong. One of the main arguments that the anti-federalists used to argue with was, they felt that the central government would take away state power and individual freedom by weakening the states. Another one of the points they argued with was, there was no Bill of Rights, and many other states had one, and in that case there was no protection of basic freedoms. The Federalists and Antifederalists argued against each other whether

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.

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.

Back when America just gained their independence, they had trouble along the way to create the nation we have today. The first basic foundation of government back in the day was based on the Articles of confederation. This foundation gave the federal government weak and the states had the most of the power. Since these Articles didn’t make the government the best it could've been, the congress came up with the Constitution. There were a few obstacles along the way to ratify, or agree with the Constitution. There were the federalists, who supported the ratification of the Constitution. There were also the anti federalists, those who didn’t support the ratification of the Constitution. Since the anti federalists were one obstacle, the congress

The constitution is a plan of government which was written in 1787 at Philadelphia. The purpose of the Constitution was to fix the Articles of Confederation’s problems. The power in the plan of government from the Constitution is split into 3 branches; Legislative branch makes laws, Executive branch enforces laws, and Judicial interprets laws. Tyranny is,” an accumulation of all power… in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,” written by James Madison. This is basically explaining that if someone or some people have all the power of the government, then they have become a tyrant. The colonists in america have experienced tyranny with the British king, King George the 3rd. The reason he was a tyrant for America is because he didn’t

“Articles of Confederation was an written agreement summarizing the agreement between different parties the federalist and the anti-federalist”. Federalist wanted to ratify the constitution,and Anti-federalist did not want to ratify it. One big issue they had was the concern of adding the “Bill of Rights”. The Federalist felt like it was unnecessary because, they believed the Constitution should only limited the government not the people. The Anti-federalist felt like the Constitution gave central government too much power.

The Articles of Confederation experienced problems from the very beginning. The main problem was the articles of confederation didn't establish that all 13 states be a sovereign nation, it allowed all 13 states to be their own sovereign nations, in truth all the states were a confederation. Which allowed them to do whatever they wanted outside of the states with foreign affairs, which the federal government now handles. The solution to the sovereignty of the states was creating a national government to help the laws not being enforced be enforced in different states. This itself was another underlying issue. The solution to the states not following each others laws was fixed by The Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Full Faith and Credit Clause

In the early years of the republic,various controversial issues divided the American people. Two such issues were ratification of the Constitution, purchase of the Louisiana Territory. These issues had arguments for and against each decision. The ratification of the constitution occurred as a cause of the lack of a strong central government. In order to ratify the constitution it needed a bill of rights .The articles of confederation were not strong enough to support the country as a whole. Although many citizens feared the central government would become to powerful and they would not get the rights they

We need a stronger central government. I know that many of us are concerned that a strong central government would take away peoples freedom and the states’ powers, but right now our country looks weak to other nations and our security may be endangered. The Articles of Confederation do not give our country the strength and unity it needs to compete with other countries around the world. Right now we are a loose association of states fighting amongst ourselves, rather than a firm union standing against the world. During the war, it was hard for the states to work together, and now that the war is over, we have no way to collect taxes to pay for our war debt, or to even pay the soldiers who fought in the war. Our states currently have limited

Back in the 1700 when the colonist just had broken up with the king they were in a great debut they didn’t know how they wanted the government set up . They knew that they didn’t want a government like the last one they had they wanted to be fair to the people and not only them. But the first try wasn’t so great let me explain how the Article of Confederation almost separated our country again. When they first started to set the goverment up they decied to do so with the Articles of Confedration which was a written document that stated all the fuctions of the national goverment it was basically the app of the United States of America. Now they thought it was a perfect way of goverment but sure enough they found out they were wrong they basicllay

Many people will argue that the new Constitution will take away individual and state rights, however, that is not true. The Constitution promises basic rights for all citizens and for the states in the form on the Bill of Rights. It improves many of the things that made the Articles of Confederation weak and balances the power throughout the government. People shouldn’t be afraid of a more powerful government because it will benefit not only the U.S. but the people as well.

The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia. It was also called the Federal Convention, the Grand Convention at Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Convention. They were going to revise the Articles of Confederation but instead Alexander Hamilton and James Madison decided to create a new government. While creating their new government, they had many arguments.

Our country should have heeded the advice our forefathers gave. They did, of course, write the Constitution which has perpetuated the United States for 240 years. Even in 1796, the first great president of the United States recognized the dangers of the issue that we are plagued with today. At his Farewell Address, George Washington preached, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” He had observed the detriments of factions first hand over the conflict of ratification. The Federalists and Antifederalists each fought for their respective opinions over

What is Constitution? A constitution can be defined as being a body of rules which regulates the system of government within a state. It establishes the bodies and institutions which form part of that system.it provides the powers which they are to exercise, it determines how they are to interact and coexist with one another and, perhaps most importantly of all. It is concerned with the relationship between government and the individual. (Parpworth).