The Framers And The Constitution

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.

Moving on, Dahl explained that not only did ignorance hinder the Framers plans for a constitution but there were also limited on opportunities in that time period. One of these limits was the fact they were convinced that creating a republic was the only way to go. They surely couldn't purpose a monarchy or a government based on a hierarchy since they originally wanted to get away from the English monarch. A second limit was the existence of only thirteen states, which would complicate creating a central government. The delegates also had to confront several other issues before they could agree on a constitution. Two of the larger issues were slavery and representation in the Senate.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

In Alfred Young’s essay The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution reported the actions that took place during the Philadelphia Convention. It was said that the Constitution was designed to last until the end of time. It was proposed that the national government should limit voting to the men of the community that held property in the form of land, a considerable farm or something with equal value. How could this work for the states that already granted suffrage to the people didn’t have these qualifications. What would the state do now, take away their right to vote? The end result was that each state decided that whoever voted in assembly would also vote for the house. Thomas Paine a radical democrat and influential part of the Revolutionary era advocated a democratic government where a single legislative would be at the top, and the executive branch would be elected from small localities by an extensive electorate where they would serve short terms. The original separation of the elitists was caused by fear of a mob and rebellion. Coercion and accommodation were to tactics used to control the threat of democratic majorities in the state. Anti-Federalists were looking to make numerous changes in the frame of the government. This would limit national power over the states, and curb the powers of the presidency while also protecting individual freedoms. Finally we come to the overwhelming opposition

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, they came together with one common purpose in mind. They needed to form a fair and solid system of government that would stand the test of time; one that was both fair for the people and would not involve a monarchy. Each of these men had their own ideas on what would constitute this system, however, so many compromises had to be made. Together, the men gathered in Philadelphia created a federal system of government and drafted a constitution outlining this government. They took care in developing three branches of federal government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch would gain too much power, thus avoiding any

Both the right to petition and assemble manifested themselves well before the Bill of Rights existed; they date all the way back to the Magna Carta, which was formulated in 1215. The Framers of the Constitution, using this historical document as well as a myriad of others as a basis, added a Bill of Rights to the end of the Constitution in 1789. Today, people exercise the many rights included in the Bill of Rights to express their opinion on an issue, but the extent to which these rights are practiced is quite controversial. Although some people believe that the right to petition and assemble should be unlimited, leaving these without restriction could be dangerous for the American people as it blurs the line between peace and violence, could

Created on November 15, 1777 and ratified by the first 13 colonies on March 1, 1781, the articles of confederation is known for being the first constitution of the united states. “The constitution provides a division of powers, meaning it assigns certain powers to the national government and reserves others for the states.” (crouse, slide 4) The constitution is needed because if we didn't have it the government would be weak and would most likely have no power. Framers of the constitution chose a system of government on a territorial basis, between a central government and several states. “ the framers were worried about the government being too powerful because; government power inevitably poses a threat to individual liberty. Therefore the

An accomplished writer, John Dickinson, is often referred to as the "Penman of the Revolution." He drafted the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress, the Petition to the King, and the second Petition to the King. He joined efforts with Jefferson to pen the Declaration of the United Colonies of North America, which resulted in the Causes and the Necessity of Taking up Arms. Dickinson wrote the first draft of the Articles of Confederation of the Second Congress, but the Articles were later edited to deteriorate the power of the confederacy. Dickinson further developed his persuasive writing capabilities with The Letters of a Farmer in Pennsylvania, as he publicly criticized the Townshend Acts of 1767. With these letters, he gained popularity with the general public by using simple words that were easy to understand. Dickinson is also accredited for Delaware and Pennsylvania being the first two states to ratify the Constitution.

When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to

(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.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

Just because something has been in practice for a long time doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. The Constitution was signed in 1787, and it is still in practice today, with the addition of some amendments of course. This document created the government that now is in charge of America today, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it created the best form of government for this country. The Framers of our Constitution could not have anticipated such major technological and social changes to the country, changes that make some of the ideas in our Constitution obsolete and ineffective. America was a test-run in the creation of a democratic republic, and it seems as if that republic is slowly failing. The political and social climate of this country

Although Hamilton attended most of the proceedings at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, he did not actually participate much in the drafting of the new document. Hamilton argued that a new and stronger central government was needed to correct the mistakes made in the government outlined in the Articles of Confederation, but

Our history has always been about doing this differently. It has been our desire since the infancy of our nation to create the most uniquely successful geographical brotherhood that had ever been witnessed. This began with the “city on a hill”, was fueled by the American Revolution, but was culminated by the United States Constitution. Years in the making, the product of a successful war but a failure known as the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution has been the pride and joy of our nation since its creation. However, America has changed much in 235 years. The Internet has come to not only exist but encompass many aspects of our daily life, muskets have made way to weapons that can be hidden in clothes and disperse over a dozen

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.