The Constitution: The Most Effective Three Branch System

Summary: Some of the issues were the people that denied to agree or support the constitution. Some states did not favor the way the government limited the power for the federal government because they were scared it would overrule state laws and disliked how citizens were able to control as well. Analysis: There were issues because several of states took quite a while to ratify the constitution. The constitution needed at least 9 out of 13 colonies to ratify, however the states did not support the new system. It took 10 months for 9 colonies to ratify. Although, it took almost an year the constitution was

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

Adams came back to Boston in 1779 to attend a state constitutional convention. The Massachusetts General Court had come up with a new constitution the year before, but voters rejected it, and so a convention was held to try again. Samuel Adams was appointed to a three-man drafting committee with his second cousin John Adams and James Bowdoin. They made a draft of the Massachusetts Constitution, which was accepted by the convention and approved by voters in 1780. After the end of the Continental Congress in 1781 Mr. Adams was appointed to the post of State Senator of Massachusetts , and he is still serving there today.

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.

While today it seems that the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention were a complete success, at the time there were many people against this. The people that supported the Constitution were known as Federalists. Key Federalists as the time were James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. They knew that they country was in need of a strong central government and needed powers not granted to the central government under the Articles of Confederation. On the opposition, those against the Constitution were known as the Anti-Federalists. People like George Mason and Patrick Henry were notable Anti-Federalists. They believed that the Constitutional Convention had ultimately gone too far. Additionally, their main arguments were that

After America shocked the world by defeating Great Britain in the War for Independence, the new nation needed a document that established their governments- state and national. After failed attempts with the Articles of Confederation, which gave the state governments too much power, the Constitution was eventually drafted. This contract established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for the citizens. The United States Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, conducted by George Washington. Said authors of the Constitution intended this document to rule our nation for eternity, yet a widely debated topic in the political science world, is whether or not the Constitution is still relevant in today’s

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

The Constitution for the US has 7 Articles, and they are all very detailed. They help lead our country toward success and let us strive to be the best country that we can possibly be. It is crazy how they wrote it in the 1700’s, and we are now in the 2000’s and still obey it. The writers of it must have been genius’!

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

Nearly the late year of 1787, the U.S. Constitution was established, stating the basal laws and fundamental principles that the United States would be governed by. Many philosophers and political thinkers furnished a great comprehension for the modern day structures that are very active today. Our Founding Fathers created a system which divides different acts of government into the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. Following in the form of the Separation of Powers, the checks and balances system ensures that political power isn’t contributing to any individual or group that enables them to gain an abundant amount of power. For the instance of this, “the Constitution provides a method for change, as the Founders created it this

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

On September 17, 1787 framers in Philadelphia signed “The Constitution of the United States in which it was approved on June 21, 1788 by the ninth state. Once confirmed, along with the addition to the Bill of Rights it developed a mutual standard by which Americans determined the responsibilities and limits of their government. Looking to the Constitution to decide political discrepancies has helped to substitute and preserve a general agreement among people that are otherwise diverse. The Constitution, although two centuries of complications and trials of the American experiment in self-government, is a testament to the cleverness and anticipation of its framers.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

The Constitution is the framework of America’s government as well as the supreme law of the United States. It was written and signed during the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787. In the Constitution there are various amendments that outline the powers and duties of the government, the state’s rights, and the rights of the people, and the process of amending and ratifying the document (Sidlow, Henschen 26). Even though there have been new laws issued by the government, they have failed to be successfully passed as an amendment. Proposing and ratifying an amendment is not an easy or short process. The difficulty of amending the Constitution is due to the various steps before the ratification of an amendment.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions