Should The Constitution Be Ratified Essay

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 Founding fathers did not want to create a government with too much power so they created the Articles of Confederation. This government turned out to be a failure. In 1787, the founding fathers met again to create a new framework of government. Most people feared creating a government that was too strong. To create a new government there had to be many compromises, the U.S. Constitution is the result of these compromises reached in Philadelphia in 1787. The Articles of Confederation were too weak and created many problems which led to a stronger National government. Two weaknesses of the Articles of confederation were that Congress did not have the power to tax. Another problem was that the states had most of the power and the National Government had little power. Two decisions made by the

The bill of rights,separation of power,and all the checks and balances are all good reasons why the constitution she be ratified.Some background information you probable want to know about the constitution is the constitution is ratified as are governments rules.Also before the constitution there was something called The Articles Of Confederation.

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.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an ineffective government in the 1780’s because of the lack of power to tax, raise an army, or regulate trade; however, it redeemed itself with the creation of the land ordinances of 1785 and 1787, and keeping the states together after the American Revolution. This government held the states together after the war, but it would not have for much longer if the constitutional convention did not draft a new document with which to govern the country that would fix the arising issues that came with the Articles of

In 1787, the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification by the 13 states, but not everyone agreed with it. There were two groups of though. One was the Anti-federalists, who opposed the Constitution and the other group were the Federalists, who supported it. The Anti-federalists were people who supported the Articles of Confederation because they were doing well under them. They were mostly poor people from rural areas and were supported by the big states. They believed that the Constitution did not secure their rights and gave the central government too much power. The Federalists were mostly the wealthy people who lived in or near city areas and were supported by the smaller states. They believed that the separation of

The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States. They were written during the revolutionary war to create a more unified government, and to establish what the national government could and could not do. The Articles let each state keep “sovereignty, freedom, and independence,” and created a very weak central government. For example, Congress could not regulate commerce or impose taxes. The impact that the Articles of Confederation had on federalism for the next few years was: the federal government had very few powers, and most of the authority remained in control of each individual state.

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

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.

Right now a debate is occurring about whether or not we should ratify the Constitution. This is an important moment in our countries history.It is important to our countries history because if we ratify the Constitution the Executive branch would have all of the power. If we didn 't ratify the Constitution the states would have power. The proposed Constitution would give the Executive branch the right to tax the American citizens and the states wouldn 't be able to say no to it. My position is an Anti-Federalist.

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation was the United State’s first constitution, it was written in an effort to unite the states after the American Revolution and served as a blueprint for the modern constitution. In order for the Articles to become official, they had to be approved by all thirteen colonies. Although Congress sent the Articles of Confederation to the states around the end of 1777 to become ratified, they were not officially adopted until March 1, 1781. Under these Articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. The American people feared a strong national government and as a result of this, the Articles of Confederation were specifically designed to be weak in the sense that each state maintains its own sovereignty and all rights to govern themselves, with the except of the rights exclusively granted to Congress. Since the Articles lacked many necessary components to keep a nation properly structured, they were eventually revised into the constitution we recognize today. Although, the Articles of Confederation seemed as though it only contained weaknesses, within the document, many strengths and accomplishments were made. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were proven to be both efficient and non-efficient during the time period they were in effect.

This paper goes over why The Constitution of 1876 needs to be re-written. It is based on past events and times have changed. There are amendments that are still used to this day and those are no problem. It is the ones that Texas has no use for that need to be removed. It has many unnecessary laws making the constitution look disorganized and messy. Having laws that are not being enforced is not very professional. The Texas Constitution also limits the power of the governor. The Democratic party decided to limit the power to avoid what happened in the Constitution of 1869. Texas was governed by the Republicans until 1873. The Democrats regained power and undid the Constitution of 1869.

In the current situation of making a decision whether to ratify or not ratify the Constitution, the Constitution should not be ratified. Due to serious problems and issues that could arise, and the problems and issues experienced in the past under the British parliament, the Constitution should not be passed and the Articles of Confederation should be kept to keep a strong state government. Issues like being under complete under control, favoring the wealthy, and having no rights should be corrected.

The failure of the Articles of Confederation help the founders to create a more stable government system with the Constitution. The flaws in the Articles helped them make changes that made the new system very effective. Under the Constitution, Congress had a right to levy taxes (Feldmeth). This fixed the problem of the government always running short on funds because they could only request taxes from the government. They were also able to raise an army to deal with threats, something they were not able to do under the Articles. States are more evenly represented under the Constitution instead of being