The Constitution Of The United States

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

The United States Constitution is the very foundation that the nation has been built upon, but its birth was not easy. The framers of the Constitution divided over many key issues relating to it and often argued at length over the creation, ratification, and implementation of this imperative document. Since the Constitution came into being it has been the epicenter of Civil Rights reforms, questions of state sovereignty versus national supremacy, and recently it has been looked to for questions about universal healthcare and what may or may not constitute a marriage. Currently the oldest “living” Constitution in the world; interpreting the United States

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

In the year 1787 a fierce debate over the ratification of the Constitution took place in the United States. The young nation suffered from a government too weak to handle its problems but with citizens wary and skeptical of strong, central governments. This is where the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists took place, the debate that would set American ideals into stone with the ratification of the Constitution and the later-added Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government to help overcome the struggles the fledgling nation faced while the Anti-federalists believed that the Constitution did not do enough to secure the rights of the people from a tyranny not unlike that of King George’s. Throughout this

The Constitution was created in the 1700’s to unify a growing nation and to ensure the basic rights of all citizens. However, as time went on, it seemed as if the large ideas in which our nation had been based upon, began to diminish and after the Mexican-American War, the nation began to face a large split in opinions mainly when regarding slavery. By the 1850’s the largely different interpretation of the Constitution caused such tension between citizens (northerners vs. southerners; those who were for slavery vs. those who opposed slavery), that the constitution could be described as an instrument of destruction that would lead to one of the darkest periods in this country’s history. The Constitution may have built up the union, but it ultimately contributed to its failure as well. The Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act, the different interpretations of the constitution and the Dred Scott case, all contributed to the failure of the union the Constitution had created.

Imagine the government of the United States of America without the constitution as the “supreme law of the land” (Art. VI). It is hard to imagine because an effective three branch system with checks and balances to ensure that the government does not turn corrupt is the most ideal form of government. In May, 1787, in an assembly room in Philadelphia, a group of 41 delegates got together and started mapping out our country’s future political practices. Finally, after many debates, on September 17, 1787, 38 out of the 41 delegates agreed on the document that is now the constitution. The hard part, though, was getting it ratified but nine out of the 13 states. Right away, five states were ready to ratify, but that still left another eight to go. Getting four of these states to accept the terms of the constitution proved to be a difficult job because many of the states requested amendments, or changes to the constitution. A bill of rights was soon after proposed and accepted, and was the push that made four more states agree to ratify the constitution. On June 21, 1778, the ninth state, and last needed to ratify the constitution, New Hampshire, validated the ratification of the new laws, and on March 4, 1789, the constitution officially became the supreme law of the land.

The American Constitution was questionable from the earliest starting point, as thoughts were separated between backers - an answer for all the country's issues, and commentators - a depravity of its republican standards. The supporters trusted that the Constitution augmented their republican thoughts, adding another level to the chose government, while the faultfinders trust the republicans worked in little political units, for this situation the states. The most effective method to separate the force between state governments and focal government was in this way a principle contention while the Constitution was composed furthermore later in time, remaining a vital issue until today.

My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. . . . It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception.

During the antebellum period, the Constitution had become a source of sectional discord between the North and the South. As it had once been framed as an instrument of national unity, the Constitution had developed different interpretations that provided the validity for ideas in both the North and South. The largest problem with the Constitution at this point, were the unaddressed issues that the Constitution never mentions. Different interpretations lead to different opinions whether something was legal. If the Constitution didn’t mention something, was it legal because it never said it wasn’t legal, or was it illegal because it was unconstitutional? The tensions between the groups of people who had differing ideas about the Constitution

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.

The United States Constitution is heralded as one of the most significant documents of today’s modern age, though ratification of the draft proposed at the Constitutional Convention became an object of opposition with individual challenges in each colony. The Federalist Papers, a series of essays authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the penname “Publius” to defend the Constitution, are historically viewed as a cornerstone for the ratification of the document. The purpose of the collection at time of writing, however, was to argue for ratification in New York State. The actual influence of the essays in the state of New York is uncertain, and this conclusion can be drawn for several reasons. The Federalist Papers were not widely published throughout the colonies, and even after publication, two-thirds of the delegates in New York opposed ratification. The amount of time taken during the New York convention to come to the decision of ratification also shows the Papers did not have a decisive effect, as few were swayed by the arguments presented by the Papers and hence, its authors, leading to the belief that yet another factor had a larger influence on ratification.

In the 1700s when the United States had detached itself from British rule it was then seen as a plutocracy. The U.S established as a democracy; a government of the people and by the people. However, this establishment was in favor of the rich, educated, and powerful and anyone who was categorized or known as elites and it has remained in favor of these people ever since. Yes we can say we have witnessed variations and seen a semi-democratic rise in the past two centuries, but we have remained a plutocracy hidden behind the word that people use to cover its true identity, democracy. Those like the framers, the public opinion role, interest groups, and money all portray our hidden plutocracy.

Any nationwide endeavor across the world over is always faced with a myriad of challenges when one factor in, the interest of different individuals or groups. During the early years of the USA, there were many problems that politicians at the time faced when trying to create and strengthen the country’s Constitution. In the early 1780’s the young country was in a deep depression, and this played a key role in influencing the exercise as it ultimately led to a heated debate about the powers of the National and State governments. Most of the conservative politicians at the time preferred a stronger federal government while state radicals believed that states should have more power since it was in a better position to determine what was best for their citizens (Jilson, 2009). More sticking points divided the founding fathers which threatened the stability and establishment of the USA, such as slavery and federalism.

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.