The Pros And Cons Of Ratifying The Constitution

The United States Constitution was signed in 1787, in hopes of creating a new legal system that would ensure basic human rights for all citizens. Often, the constitution evokes political discussion on whether or not there should be a constitutional convention. The article named “Re – examining the Constitution by Kenneth Jost (2012), provides the reader with an interesting analysis of the pros and cons of a constitutional convention (“Con – Con”). Citizens who oppose the Con – Con argue that changing the Constitution wouldn’t transition well because of the current political climate, and explain that it has worked fine over the years. On the other hand, citizens who are in favor of the Con – Con, state that the constitution is outdated, and suggest that reviewing it may be beneficial to better suit the citizen’s needs. A close comparison of both arguments reveals that people who support the constitutional convention have stronger reasons regarding the document and are more rational about the issues associated with it.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government, I feel that the Bill of Rights helps strengthen the government by giving it structure and giving it a backbone so it could grow as the nation grows. This is why I felt that the Anti-Federalists held a stronger position in debate. The Constitution is an important document for the condition of the nation, but the Bill of Rights, and the freedom of the people, is equally as

Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

The Federalists supports the Constitution as it was and want to change the Constitution immediately. Federalists support a strong central government giving little power to states but ample amounts to federal government. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” This was taken from the Federalist Papers No. 39 and it describes how the Federalist think the government should be run. “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their

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

The United States Constitution was drafted up to help America grow as a country and be a country where everyone wanted to live. It was written as a guidline to follow to ensure its citizens rights and liberties, and their pursuit to happiness. There is a lot of controversy over the US constitution on whether or not some of the things in there are good or bad or what not. I think that the United States Constitution was very well written and it follows a very principalistic guidline and it has its own moral and principals. Just like the unalienable rights that everyone talks about. These rights are meant to stand for its people. They cannot be taken away from the government, they cant be tampered with by the government or anything like

The Anti-Federalists believed that a strong central government would decrease the rights of the common people, and would not protect the rights of citizens. In Document 1, a Massachusetts farmer explains that the new constitution would decrease involvement of the common people in government, leaving it to be run by wealthy and highly educated men. The Anti-Federalists wanted all people to be involved in government, rather than a selected elite few. The Anti-Federalists also rallied against the establishment of a standing military. As said in Document 2, a military could easily exercise force to quiet those with concerns involving the government, and that the ideas of being free and peaceful do not involve a standing army. Perhaps one of the biggest concerns of the Anti-Federalists, was that there was nothing in the constitution that protected the rights of the people. Thomas Jefferson supported parts of the new constitution, but disliked that there was no Bill of Rights in the document. Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison saying “...Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to….” (Doc 6). Jefferson believe that the people should have this Bill of Rights in the constitution to protect their personal freedoms and beliefs. With that he fully supported the ratification of the new

The Battle for the Ratification of the Constitution “But a Constitution of Government once changed for Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” - John Adams, Second President of the United States. The Constitutional Constitution was called to write a better plan of government to bring together the United States of America. Although it was a necessary plan many Anti- federalists refused to ratify it out of fear of losing the power they had.

With a failing, and week Articles of Confederation loosely uniting the state, delegates from each states set out to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they made an extremely polarizing Constitution, which was debated on and revised in the years to come. In these debates were parties, with two entirely different political ideologies and philosophies. The Federalists believed that they should ratify the Constitution now, and they would amend the Constitution later. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be ratified, because it didn't guarantee the citizen’s rights and gave too much power to the government.

These people tried to persuade anti-federalists into supporting the ratification. They stated that the event of ratification is provided with advantages such as promises to repay for toils, dangers, and waste of the revolution. Federalists believed that without adoption of the Constitution there would have been chaos and certain rights would not have been protected. A South Carolina delegate, David Ramsay shared his thoughts on the ratification and said, “Had not the present constitution or something equivalent been adopted, no one can compute the confusion and disorder which would probably have taken place from the jarring interests of such ungoverned multitude” (Document 7). Ramsay also assessed that with the system of government created by the Constitution citizens can expect a permanent system of national happiness, unity of design, and

These people agreed on the Constitution as they believed that it would strengthen the federal government. The reason behind their belief of a stronger federal government was their fear of too much power given to the people. They wanted people who feared the Constitution to know that they will not regret the ratification of the Constitution. Most importantly on their side, they want both sides to be happy. The evidence that supports these claims are, “...not invested with more powers than indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good government.” (Document 4), “These powers...are so distributed...that it can never be in danger of degenerating the monarchy.” (Document 4), and “Each individual then must contribute such a share of his rights as is necessary for attaining that security that is essential to freedom.” (Document 6). This evidence proves that the federalists are making sure that everyone is content with their rights. They are also assuring the anti federalists that the federal government will not abuse power and they will not take over their

You are an Anti-Federalist. You are deciding whether or not you should support the ratifying the Constitution. What side shall you appoint? Well, you could support it and have protected citizens’ rights, a three-branch government, and a new and improved system. However, you could oppose the supporting of the Constitution and not have any of those improved rights. I believe that you should support it because it is very beneficial to America’s growth and success. That’s what I think, anyways. Why, you ask? Well, keep reading and I’ll show you.

In the early history of the United States, many founding fathers and people before them helped shape the underpinning for our nation’s liberty. Of the founding fathers and persons who were essential in the naissance of the great nation known today as the United States of America, John Adams is undoubtedly one of the most vital of them all. John Adams by David McCullough did not only do Adams’ life story justice, it also painted the man and his works so vividly in every bit of glory he deserves. The period of the 1700s was one filled with fear of the nation’s former paternal country and also full of desire for independence. It was through Adams’ hard determination and defense in the country’s ability to stand on

While the “The Constitution of 1787 gave enormous protection to slavery. Through the three-fifths clause, the slave states received extra representation for their slaves in Congress. . .The allocation of presidential electors is based on the size of a state's delegation in the House of Representatives. Thus the three-fifths clause gave the slave states extra muscle in the election of presidents based on the number of slaves the state had.” (Finkelman) However, this did not make up for the superior numbers of people that lived in the north. The reason that the North had much larger numbers of people is because the north had a free labor system that allowed more people that could live and work in the north. The slave labor system had a limited