Evan Oberhausen Professor Tasha Lavey POLS 313 20 April 2015 Constitutional Theory Constitutional theory is an area of Constitutional law that focuses on the underpinnings of a constitutional government. It goes into the foundations of the Constitution and focuses on the meaning of it as well. It is a way to try and justify the rights and laws that the founders set down for us to interpret and to follow within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Amidst the completion of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, when it had come time to ratify it, there was a general divide amongst the framers and the people. It seemed to split into two groups; the Federalists who favored the ratification and supported the expansion to a stronger and more …show more content…
But despite the separation of powers, the Anti-Federalists were still wary of the federal government having too much power. There were only a few individual rights protections included in the original writing of the Constitution; whether it was out of fear that providing a list of protected rights might end up being incomplete and later interpreted to deny not listed rights, or because they had believed that they were creating a central government with limited powers that couldn’t possibly have the authority to violate the individual rights the people deserved. Among the few that were included were ones such as, the Writ of Habeas Corpus not being suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion, then the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder to prevent the punishment of crimes that occurred before they were illegal and singling out groups and individuals for certain punishments. The privileges and immunities clause essentially protects from states being able to discriminate against out of state citizens in regards to certain individual rights. The privileges and immunities clause however only extended to fundamental rights. The framers identified the protection from the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion and invasion in order to protect citizens from being taken and held prisoner with no legal
The Constitution had changes the United States greatly. The document, written in 1788, was a powerful representation of the government back then, and amazingly, it’s still in play today. During the 1700’s, the first political parties formed over disagreements in the government and the constitution. The two parties were the Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists made up the people who felt that the stronger government was best for the country and supported the Constitution. The federalists had felt as if different “fiscal and monetary policies” were a weakness in the national economy. Also, the Federalists supported banking("Anti-Federalist vs Federalist"). Federalists wanted to fight for stronger governments, managing the country’s debt
Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.
A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated
Our nation has been divided amongst two specific groups. The Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Antifederalists continue to argue against the ratification of the Constitution. On the opposing side the Federalists are for the constitutions based on their beliefs that will benefit the nation.
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 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 Constitution has been operative since 1789 after the ratification of nine states (American Vision and Values, Page 52). Today many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a governmental framework, defining three branches and giving powers to the government and others to the states. It also guarantees the rights of the people. It took two and one-half years for the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution. This ratification period was one of great debate and produced a series of essays complied into The Federalist. Authored by John Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the ratification debate in New York, they tried to get public support for the Constitution. Thus began the first
The Article of Confederation was ratified in 1781. This Article was part of the formation of a national government in the United States. But, by 1787, a reform convention was held to address the Article’s weaknesses. This event also brought about tension in the country between two groups, the Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists were a group of people that advocated for a system of government, while Antifederalists opposed the creation of a stronger America. The Article of Confederation was designed as a loose confederation of 13 states, and reflected principles of the Declaration of Independence. But, difficulties began to arise with the new Constitution when economic weakness and farmers revolt proved the Article was a poor form of government, along with opposing views from Federalists and Antifederalists, verifying that an inadequate document had been created.
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
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.
In 1782 Americans won their independence from Britain in the American Revolution. After the colonies won their independence, Americans created the Constitution. Its purpose was to replace the Articles of Confederation and solve its problems and more importantly to bring the states together under a single document creating a stronger union of all the states. There was one problem though: there were a few fundamental issues that the framers could not agree on. In the early nineteenth century the United States began to split, but as the mid-century came around, people became more polarized in their views and the union started to separate drastically. During the period of 1850, until 1861 when the Confederate States of America was formed, 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.
After Shay’s Rebellion and the nation on the brink of bankruptcy it was clear that the Articles of Confederation would not be adequate to preserve the nation. So began the great battle for the balance between order and freedom. The main point of dispute between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the battle over the ratification of the Constitution surrounded the question of what powers and rights were required in order to insure the security and liberty of the nation. The Federalists advocated that a strong central government was needed, which was supported by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However the Anti-Federalists were determined on keeping the sovereignty of the states and by doing so also retaining their secured political freedom.
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
As a matter of fact, the separation of powers may be spoken of, not simply as a political theory for controlling----some would say handcuffing----government aganist a feared tendency to