Review: Why George Mason Didn T Sign The Constitution

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

Constitution. When the Constitution was written in 1787, it left out individual rights for citizens which led to the refusal of many states to ratify it. The Constitution of the U.S. was made to embody the fundamental principles of a government but the lack of a Bill of Rights was the main reason why many opposed the ratification of it. As stated in the Article VII, “the vote of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution as the principal document uniting the states,” but in 1788 only four had states ratified it. At the time of the ratification, there was a debate between those who supported it, the Federalists, and those who opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued that individuals’ rights were already protected by state constitutions, and that not listing these rights did not mean that they were inexistent as natural rights, which explains why First Amendment rights were initially not included in the Constitution. On the other hand, The Anti-Federalists strongly disagreed and feared that the increased strength of a national government would lead to an abuse of individual rights. These disputes finally initiated the draft of a new charter for the Constitution of the United States that included The First Amendment as the first section under the Bill of Rights. The leading man for this draft was James Madison, of Virginia, who is often considered “the father of the Constitution” because of his

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.

George Washington’s Presidential Farewell Address consisted of three critical elements that were considered vital for the functional survival of the country that had just won its independence. On September 19, 1796, President Washington advised the nation to stand together as one united country, warned the people about the dangers of political parties and he established foundational reasons for the country to not become over involved in foreign affairs. These three principles set forth an understanding that was monumental for American society. Their level of importance serves as a near perfect reflection to both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as the building blocks to a great nation. Each of these three principles, even though they were not written as laws, went on as a tradition for this nation; each being clung to with the same level of importance and integrity as the Founders sought in the aforestated documents of freedom.

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

Rhode Island did not sign the Constitution until many months after the Constitutional Convention. On the last day of the Convention Benjamin Franklin made his final, and most important speech of his life. Franklin started his speech with, “I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it” (Speech of Benjamin Franklin). Although Benjamin Franklin did not totally agree with the Constitution, he still went through with it for the greater good of the

The State Franklin was failed because almost entirely due to weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation.Confederation government’s inability to collect taxes from states , one of the most effective ways for states to pay debts was to cede , or give up their western land holdings to national government.Settlers in the region faced numerous hardships without and from either North Carolina’s government or the national government.

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

In June of 1776, a committee consisting of John Dickinson and was appointed to draft a constitution. Meanwhile, fighting against the perceived tyrannical government under the British continued. As a result, a lot of the decisions made while drafting the articles were an attempt to avoid the mistakes and problem of that government. There was strong opposition (from who?) to a powerful, centralized, and distant government. Concerns also arose from the conservative majority of the committee about the wisdom of a republic, especially one so geographically large and diverse. How could a government so far removed from its people remain attentive to the people it was attempting to represent?

“The Constitution devotes the national domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare and to liberty” (Maier 154). This quote, stated by William Henry Seward, displays the strength and stability that the Constitution had over the nation, and the liberty and justice it supplied for all of its citizens. Although the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation have similarities, they have many differences, which proved that the Articles of Confederation were a weaker document in comparison. It can be said that the Articles were the “rough draft” to the final living document, which significantly influenced and “ruled” our government, as it still does today.

The new Constitution fixes the problems that we have had under the Articles of Confederation. We have not had anyone oversee and make sure that laws are carried out. The Constitution sets up a president to do this. Do not fear that he would be a king, though, for he is not to have all power. It should be shared with two other government branches. One of these branches, called the Judicial Branch, adds national courts, which will help people settle disputes too big for a state court. Congress was left very little power at all under the Articles of Confederation. With the Constitution, Congress will be able to control the printing and sending of money in the States. This will allow Congress to pay off their debts remaining after the war. Congress

After the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States still had a major task ahead of them. They had to form a new government that would satisfy the demands of the people and ensure the success of their nation. The Articles of Confederation was the first system of government that was proposed and put into effect. This attempt at creating a system that protected the people form a strong central government ultimately failed but was an important step in the development of the current government system. The weaknesses presented by the Articles of Confederation helped lead to reforms that made the Constitution successful. Both the Articles and the Constitution demonstrate the struggles that the colonists went through with the British and

Confirmation of a constitution is a strong move that makes the drafted document the law of the specified land. It should be supported by majority parties involved. As an editor of the New York newspaper, I do not support the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 because it tends to conquer and violate some necessary procedures. I believe reasons such as defects in the post-revolution War articles of confederation and lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce that lead to the drafting of the document was not substantial enough initiate the documentation of the constitution. The material happens to lack fare terms that apply to all the parties, therefore, could not be signed or ratified into law. The document

The Articles of Confederation, a written agreement that ensured each state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence, led America to victory over the British centralized government. During the late eighteenth century, the empowered government terrified the Americans, hence the thirteen colonies decided to spread governance powers equally to all functional states. The states had absolute dominance over the Congress due to the Articles of Confederation. While the localized power of states seemed to be promising, the system posed great threat to the major components of a democratic government, which are coercion, revenue, and legitimacy (Lecture 1 - The Roots of Government). The system of localized power did not ensure legitimacy, which referred to people’s recognition of national government. Congress’s lack of power to control each state’s actions caused great chaos. Eventually, national government’s lack of power and inability to unify the states exposed multiple flaws in the Articles of Confederation; consequently, a new supreme law, the Constitution was established by the founding fathers. The new supreme law successfully altered the imbalanced system into a novel democratic government.

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.