During the creation of Constitution, each state had to approve it. During this time there were people who supported it, Federalist and who did not, Anti-Federalists. I am siding with Anti-Federalist since they were right in thinking they did not want to give all their power away to the national government. If you lived in a state separate from where government state is established, how would you get your problems in your state solved if you had a government who was telling you what to do but not really knowing what problems you had in your state. If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had.
Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible. After the ratification of the Articles of Confederation the states pretty much governed themselves, they regulated their own interstate trade, they raised their own militia, and the Sovereignty resided in the
Origins of the Bill of Rights | By: Leonard W.Levy | Nelson Fernandez3/11/15Per.6 | In today’s world of devious politics & manipulative politicians, it is more important to know your Constitutional Rights better than ever before. Leonard Levy’s book give great insight to what out United States Constitution written by our glorious Founding Fathers has guaranteed and safe guarded to all of us. The book gives insight on all the amendments and what they mean, where they bill of rights came from, skepticisms of people involved with this Bill of Rights, Leonard’s own opinion on the Bill of Rights. Despite the fact that Leonard put together of very informative, insightful book it is also very dull and takes much drudging to go through
Constitution Essay Due to the supremacy clause the constitution is the law of the land. That makes this simple little document a giant target for most politicians trying to change laws and policies as they see fit. However, the founding fathers were a clever bunch and new this document would need to stand strong if it were to be the basis for governing our whole nation. Therefore they made the process of amending it a rather difficult feat. The first step in the amendment process is to propose said amendment to congress.
Although i believe many things from both people, I would have to say my philosophy would be Jefferson’s philosophy because he believed every word of the Constitution. It does not make sense to compose an important document that is beneficial to the people, and not stand by it. That's like being a teacher who composes a set of classroom rules and does not enforce them. 8.) I believe Adams was a great president because he managed to keep George Washington’s policy of remaining neutral and staying isolated.
Brutus says in his essay that this power given to the federal government will take away all of the state government’s power to collect taxes and that the constitutions and treaties of the states will become null. Hamilton denies this by explaining that the structure of the proposed federal government will preserve the state constitutions. What Hamilton says about this seems to go against Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that the law of the Constitution will be supreme over the states. Brutus’ Essay V seems to say the same thing over and over again. Many of the things that he lists as problems to the nation are things that we love about our government today.
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
Some cause for concerns can be found in the first writing of the Constitution (the one that will soon be thoroughly discussed) and some lay in more recent Amendments. However, we must not forget that these voices can only be discussed out loud for all opinions to be made on it because of the foresight of those in our past that demanded such rights before approving the Constitution as the foundation of our new government. The Constitution that was written before the ratification debate was adequate in its democracy, but fell short of its goal of creating a government that incorporates all of the citizens views equally and effectively. The Constitution divides the power between the three government