Should We Ratify The Constitution?

I think it should be repealed because we are paying taxes and it goes to other things than the United States itself. For example, the government uses our money for things like foreign aid, useless scientific researches, and useless construction. Instead, we should be able to use the money how we want to in our local community. In article V of the Constitution, it explains how to get an amendment changed. In order to get it changed, 66% of Congress have to agree on it being added. The first step in amending the constitution would be to call a convention to meet with the Congress or the States. Both the States and Congress have the ability to make a change or propose an amendment. There are two part of Congress, the House and the Senate. The main difference is that decisions are easier to challenge in Senate and you have unlimited debate time in the Senate. The House also only has 435 members whereas the Senate has 100 members. After 66% of the House and the Senate agrees on adding the amendment, it then goes to the States, where 75% have to agree on it. After Congress have voted on the amendment and it has been passed down to the States, then they have seven years to vote on

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.

Another disadvantage of the Articles of Confederation was that it created a flawed financial system. The Congress could not pass taxes; it had to request funding from the states. “The taxes for paying that proportion [government funding and debt],” read the Articles of Confederation, “shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States…” (Article VIII) The states could

The Constitution should change with society. Like all societies, ours changes with time. Like it or not, things will be different in the future. Although we agree with things we are doing now, we may not in the future. Our constitution is ment to be part of a lasting government in the land of the free. If the USA really wishes to be held up to that title, its people must be able to agree, and if needed, change the Constitution.

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and

One reason to ratify the Constitution is with the Constitution we could rise the money we need through taxes to pay off debts.According to the speech given by delegate James Wilson it is the federal government 's job to protect our nation, support the dignity of the union, and pay off the nations debts. "it is the federal government’s duty to provide for the national safety, to support the dignity of the union, and to pay the country’s debts."For the government to protect our nation we need to pay, feed, and provide shelter for all of our soldiers. To do that we need money and we get the money from taxes. To keep our nations dignity we need to pay off our debts and we can 't do that without money and the money comes from taxes that aren 't being fully payed.This quote of James Wilson says that the government should get to tax people directly in cases

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.

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 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.

I firmly believe the Constitution is an excellent plan for government and can overcome many disagreements within society. It offers a magnificent balance of power, and is a careful compromise between various political views. You will not regret ratifying this constitution as it prevents any single group from dominating the government. I can assure you the new federal government will not overpower the states because of the diversity of the United States. The three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, all have the power to agree or disagree with the other branches. This is another good reason to support the Constitution; it offers an unyielding system of checks and balances which keeps any branch of government from becoming too

The United States of America fought for independence in 1775 until 1783. After the war, the newly independent Americans needed a new government. The Continental Congress, after years of debate and drafting, decided to adopt the Articles of Confederation in 1781. The first draft was proposed in 1775, but never acted upon. Many drafts were proposed, six, to be exact, and in 1777 it was given to the states for approval. Maryland was the last to ratify it, given to concerns of lands to the west. After this was settled, they approved and the Articles of Confederation went into effect on March 1, 1781 ("Articles of Confederation."). However, none of these six drafts compared to the document of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. This document changes the union from a loose group of friendly states allowed to attend to almost all affairs, to states united under a federal government. Not all of the founding fathers thought that this document was good, though. The debates were between two parties, the federalists and the anti-federalists. The anti federalists thought that the constitution gave the federal government too much power. Despite these fears, the constitution was ratified. To this day government officials argue about legitimacy of laws and whether the federal government or the states have the right to pass the laws in question. All throughout the time that the United States has operated under the constitution, it has been a fight between views of centralism and

Today, we categorize those who supported ratification of the Constitution and the federal government as the Federalist. Those who opposed it are known as the Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist feared that this new government design would be too powerful and tyrannical just like the monarch of Great Britain. Instead they supported local, state governments. The Federalist wrote series of papers known as the Federalist Papers, in which they responded to the concerns of the Anti-Federalist. Many times disproving claims of tyranny. In the 69th Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton addresses the concern of the presidential powers, “…the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York” (1788). The federalist believed that the national government should hold authority in most matters, like that of a king. At the same time there would be checks and balances on the president just like a governor. The Federalist did not want a tyrannical government, and believed that the Constitution would protected them from such. A compromise had to be made to determine the fate of the United States.