The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
Zinn also uses an excerpt from historian Charles Beard to explain his reasoning. Beard basically said that the rich controls the government or the laws the government operates by. Zinn points out that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hides behind innocence. Meaning that Congress completely ignores the freedom of speech. Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies.
However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties. Before Hamilton's plan, America was having financial problems. There were war debts that were unpaid and individual states and even Congress issued worthless paper money. Hamilton created a plan that would first pay down the national debt and then assume the debt of the states. This was called the Assumption Plan.
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.
Jefferson knew that American farmers needed more land, and he had to go against his belief of a strict constitution. However during the same time the Federalists became strict constructionists of the constitution. They argued that this transfer of land was unconstitutional. The Federalists said that this new land was worthless and would only put the country even more in debt. Their main reason for that was that the creation of new states would decrease their power in congress.
The general consensus was that smaller states demanded a more active role in the government, despite their smaller populations, but the larger states claimed bias and claimed that, in essence, “majority rules”. Some major delegates also used this opportunity to forever shut the ghosts of Shay, in which the government was granted significant power to suppress like wise rebellions. The government would be in essence based on that of England, but with a conglomeration of majority and state rule. Prominent figures such as James Madison proposed compromises, which led eventually to the decline of states rights and the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. This, however, was also balanced so to ratify the Constitution.
Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties. It gave a leading control of the government and helping themselves before any others, as it created a model Parliament that would abuse than serve, that moved the freedom that
They stressed that the newly created form of central government did not threaten the states’ rights. The Anti-Federalists touted the “spirit of ‘76” (Schultz, page 15) in favor of a weaker central government, preservation of states’ rights, strong individual liberties and at the very least a robust bill of rights to protect individual liberties. Ratification stalled as Anti-Federalists from larger states such as Massachusetts, New York and Virginia refused to ratify until a bill of rights for citizens was guaranteed, and Federalists, eager to see the Constitution enacted, resisted lengthy amendments to the Constitution for fear of having to begin writing the entire framework over
Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law. Marshall stated that Marbury is correct in the fact that he is deserving of an appointment, yet the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional so the court can't give him an appointment. In this case Marshall stated the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. By using the Marbury v. Madison case, Marhsall was able to create the Judicial Review which gave more power to Federal government, and thus helping his ideas as a federalists. John Marshall also used the powers of Congress and the relationship between federal and state authorities to end a dispute between national and state law regarding banks—McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.This time was during the Era of Good Feelings as James Monroe was president.
Branches of Government Jefferson said it best, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government” (The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., 1996-2012, para. 1). After the ultimate control while under rule of the crown, the founding fathers sought to create not only a government that provided for rights and liberties of the people, but also to ensure that government interaction and authority was spread amongst various branches. This distribution of power would provide checks and balances to guarantee reduced influence, while allowing each section to operate independently. However, agreement of each party would be problematic to achieve when needing to enact new laws and regulations.