The Ratification Of The Constitution : Robert Yates And Alexander Hamilton

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

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.

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.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays intended to explain and defend the Constitution. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton explains the powers of the courts. He viewed the courts as the least likely of all of the branches of government to impose upon or threaten the liberties and properties of Americans. Hamilton begins his argument by mentioning that federal judges serve for life. He explains that the reason for this lifelong term is to help the judges avoid pressures from other political powers or the popular opinion. Therefore, judges would also be the least likely to let their political agendas get in the way of Americans’ freedom and possessions.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a compromise engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the Constitution's legitimacy.

Back when America just gained their independence, they had trouble along the way to create the nation we have today. The first basic foundation of government back in the day was based on the Articles of confederation. This foundation gave the federal government weak and the states had the most of the power. Since these Articles didn’t make the government the best it could've been, the congress came up with the Constitution. There were a few obstacles along the way to ratify, or agree with the Constitution. There were the federalists, who supported the ratification of the Constitution. There were also the anti federalists, those who didn’t support the ratification of the Constitution. Since the anti federalists were one obstacle, the congress

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

Alexander Hamilton's definiton of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was argued in Federalist No. 78.

They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that entrench their own authority; that in times of crisis people may panic and too readily sacrifice both fundamental freedoms and structural limitations; and that prejudice, hostility, and intolerance may at times lead governing majorities to give short shrift to the legitimate needs and interests of political, religious, racial, and other minorities.

The process of debating the guiding document of the new nation, provided the opportunity for 55 delegates to reflect on a national argument. The key issue of strong central government verses strong states provided the dividing line between Federalists and Anti-Federalists and would be seen as the underlying theme for many of the debates. Writing as Brutus, Robert Yates stated it succinctly, “The most important question that was ever posed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you…” (1787).

Alexander Hamilton’s first Federalist Paper endorses ratification of the proposed constitution. His unifying point is that the use of reason—in the form of the people’s "reflection and choice"—will lead to the truth, whereas their use of passion will lead to ruin. Hamilton attempts to persuade his readers to make the correct decision by reminding them of the sheer importance of the matter. He suggests that "good men" will want to make the correct choice in light of their "true interests" (33), while the adversaries of the Constitution will be ruled by passions, deceit, and even weak minds. He frankly warns his readers against "any impressions other than those which may result from the

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

In the earliest stages of the constitution, as the federal government began to form there was no consensuses between the federalists and anti-federalists on the power the judicial branch of government should be allowed to maintain. Judicial Review is defined as “a constitutional doctrine that gives to a court system the power to annul legislative or executive acts which the judges declare to be unconstitutional” (Judicial Review). Robert Yates wrote Brutus No. 11 and 12 questioning the power of judicial review within the judicial branch from the perspective of an anti-federalist (Gillman 57-58, 2013). Alexander Hamilton and James Madison responded to Yates anti-federalist claims with the federalist papers specifically, in Federalist No. 78,