Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays. Loose construction is based on the idea that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen what the world would be like in the 21st Century, and that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of historic and societal change. Loose construction allows the government to expand powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution as long as these powers are not specifically prohibited. Society changed from day to day and the country has to be ready for when changes are made. If powers are not outlined in the constitution, then it is up to the government (courts, judges, etc.)
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
Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
The ratification of the Constitution was not a foregone conclusion because although both sides wanted to accomplish the same goals, the paths to reach these goals were very different. Opposing parties knew that a more concrete government must be written down and acted upon to uphold the newly acquired freedom of the states. These differences would eventually be settled in close votes for the ratification of the newly written constitution. The Anti-Federalist’s main concern was that the new concept of the republic union would fail under a national expansion. They felt that the most effective way of protecting their liberties and rights was to have smaller, state run governments.
Doesn’t this all seem barbaric and unfair? This is an example of a world without government, which believe it or not had to have existed at one time. The earliest people on earth weren’t born into a world with a manual that told them how to run the place. But more born into a chaotic world, and eventually people got sick of this and began creating forms of government. Doing so by agreeing to create a state, this state was to be a system by contract, a contract that the states people would grant which powers they chose to the state, in exchange for the upheaval of their securities and rights.
The Articles played an important role by proving a strong central government was not to be feared, it was a necessity. Following the Revolution, Americans desired to be free from burdensome taxes, to have a market economy and, most of all, not to be manipulated by a distant head of state. The former colonies existed as 13 individual republics, only tenuously as a union. The Constitution, which would not be written until 1787, declared supremacy over state laws, let the federal government tax the people and gave power to an executive. Because of this sharp contrast in ideology, it is clear the Constitution would not have been ratified immediately after the Revolution.
(9 points) 3. Why did the Framers of the Constitution create a mechanism for amending the Constitution but then make it very difficult to actually make any changes? Answer: They knew that people would change along with the constitution so in order for it to be successful it had to mirror what was actually happening. As a result they made the process difficult so that common interest would not affect the constitution.
Both federalists believed the new Constitution would help with providing protection, the general welfare of the people and enforcing the laws. (Doc 1 & 3) Two men, Patrick Henry and Amos Singletree, were both antifederalist and opposed the Constitution. Patrick opposed the Constitution because he believed the states would lose power. He thought it was too late to try to fix something that separated America from Great Britain. Amos Singletree believed the men who drafted the constitution are using it as an excuse to gain more power and money for themselves.
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Is the Constitution still Relevant? An ongoing argument over modern political and social issues centers on whether the U.S. Constitution is relevant in today’s world. With all the advancements in technology, communication, transportation, commerce, and in the medical field, some argue that the Founding Fathers could not have seen what would be necessary for the United States to stay the great nation that it already is, so I believe that the constitution is still relevant to a degree. For most, when forming the Constitution, the framers did not construct the constitution’s durability based on any advancement in technologies or society. They wrote the restrictive forces of the Constitution on something far more predictable, the meaning of freedom.