Another purpose for the Federalist Constitution would be in regards to the safety of each individual state. They believed that each state should find a motive to make some sacrifices for the purpose of the general protection. The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few simple reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government.
Constitution Paper Ashley Noe HIS/110 Joel Getz May 4, 2015 Constitution Paper A group of men came up with a group of laws that they felt would be beneficial to Americans. The Constitution addressed the complaints of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was able to identify and address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. There are many reasons as to why the Constitution evolved, but its purpose has served America well. The Great Compromise, the idea of Roger Sherman from Connecticut, was an agreement for both large and small states to have two house legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives for each state.
At the Constitutional Convention the Federalists drew up plans for a new constitution while the Anti-Federalists complained and picked apart their plan, even though the Anti-Federalists had no plan of their own. The main issue the Anti-Federalists had with the new constitution was that they thought that it would not protect the rights of states and individuals. Federalists argued that a stronger government was necessary, not to impede individual rights, but to be able to pass and enforce laws. Federalists also argued a stronger bond between states was needed to improve the economic state of the country. Under the Articles of Confederation each state printed their own currency which became worthless in any other
Federalists, supporters of the Constitution, believed that a strong national government was the key to the survival of the colonies, while the Antifederalists, those who opposed the Constitution, thought that a powerful national government could become a tyrant and overshadow state rights, and individual liberties. In an attempt to keep the Constitution, and appease the Antifederalists the Bill of Rights was written. This Bill addressed the fears of the Antifederalists and assured certain rights to the people that could not be impinged upon. This addition gained more support with the Antifederalists. With this new Constitution and the Bill of Rights Federalists and Antifederalists came to an agreement on how to
The Progressive Era was successful overall but did encounter roadblocks to reform in certain factions of the country, essentially taking a step backward. Progressive reformers advocated their dissent against the current state of society and government in many ways. Muckrakers used their writing of books and art in newspapers to distribute their views to a vast portion of society. Others chose to take a more direct route instead of writing or drawing. Three famous reformers include Frank Norris, Jane Addams and Upton Sinclair.
How far do the sources suggest that the Addled Parliament was short-lived because of the action of the House of Commons? The sources suggest to a reasonable extent that the Addled Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons. However there is evidence to suggest that the Kings arrogance and strong belief in the hierarchical system that caused the dissolution of Parliament. Source 10 suggests the Commons wanted the King to make concessions, ensuring a stable relationship, showing that the Commons were disputing with the crowns policies, thus giving the impression that Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons’ actions. Source 10 says that the Commons were expecting the King to make concessions that should ‘be: relieving the resentment caused by purveyance, giving greater clarity to the law of treason and reforming troublesome laws” This source suggests that the Commons were undermining the King’s power and believing that their influence was greater than it was.
Agree of the agitation that could be permitted and where they should have an ending to it. “ The vast extent of the territory over which the inhabitants spread makes the collisions between the various parties less probable and less dangerous there than elsewhere” pg.75). Most candidates and people may think that time of the presidential elections as the moment of the national crisis. The parties have a great interest in winning the election but not so much to make their doctrines triumph by the president- elect help to illustrate by his election that the doctrines have gained a majority. Of course the president always defends his self.
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
However, even though the parties’ beliefs greatly differed there were some similarities between them. The Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs had varying political platforms which appealed to different people. The Jacksonian Democrats believed that the powers of the federal government had to be limited. Similar to the Jeffersonians they followed a strict view of the constitution believing that state rights were more important than federal rights. The Whig Party on the other hand opposed the ideology of the Jackson Democrats and wanted more federal power.
The Articles after a few short years would eventually be replaced by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution replaced the Articles because they contained more weaknesses than strengths, which forced the colonists to get rid of them and create a new document; the strengths of the Articles were few. Replacing the Articles pleased the people with the legislature because it gave them a voice in the government. The fear of the central government holding too much power was very concerning and consequently resulted in creating a governing document that left many important powers to the states. The Articles provided a unicameral structure for the new government and established a league of friendship among the 13 independent states.