The American Constitution was questionable from the earliest starting point, as thoughts were separated between backers - an answer for all the country's issues, and commentators - a depravity of its republican standards. The supporters trusted that the Constitution augmented their republican thoughts, adding another level to the chose government, while the faultfinders trust the republicans worked in little political units, for this situation the states. The most effective method to separate the force between state governments and focal government was in this way a principle contention while the Constitution was composed furthermore later in time, remaining a vital issue until today. The first Constitution was disputable to some extent
On September 17, 1787 framers in Philadelphia signed “The Constitution of the United States in which it was approved on June 21, 1788 by the ninth state. Once confirmed, along with the addition to the Bill of Rights it developed a mutual standard by which Americans determined the responsibilities and limits of their government. Looking to the Constitution to decide political discrepancies has helped to substitute and preserve a general agreement among people that are otherwise diverse. The Constitution, although two centuries of complications and trials of the American experiment in self-government, is a testament to the cleverness and anticipation of its framers.
“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787, the United States just had 13 states. The Founding Fathers believed that more states would want to join the Union in the future. They saw that it would be significant for new states to have the same form of government as the original states had. Since then there are now over 50 states that have similar characteristics which were developed centuries ago; although, resembling the creation of new ideas and inventions, current state government had many problems from being the way it is today, it also has many important features that benefit many people, as well as plays an important role in how American democracy and government works.
This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.
The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the
Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and
The United States Constitution was influenced by Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome in multiple ways. These ways included republicanism, Ancient Greece’s direct democracy, and Ancient Rome’s branches of government. Republicanism was the principle that states the fact that the people were allowed to vote. In Ancient Rome, the Senators were elected by the patricians who were aristocrats. Aristocrats were wealthy landowners, and they were citizens of Ancient Rome. So technically, the Senators were chosen by the citizens. Ancient Rome had a republican government, so they elected leaders that made important decisions for them. A republican government is also known as an indirect democracy, which is the form of government that the United States
On May 29, 1790, the American Constitution was ratified. According to constitutionality.info, the main purpose for this constitution was to accomplish two things, form a federal government and delegate certain powers to this government. The Constitution exists today mainly due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. According to usconstitution.net, the Articles of Confederation failed due to some major faults.
The Framers of the United States Constitution gave more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments. They did this because they wanted to bring the United States together under one government. Federalists and Anti-federalists had their own views on the Constitution. Many people believed that the Constitution was a good thing that would be a success for the United States. Other people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the Executive branch. The writers of the Constitution gave more power to the Federal government instead of the state governments because the Federal government did not receive enough power in the Articles of Confederation.
The US Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. The war for independence had ended and the United States of America was now a sovereign nation. It had a central government which was established by the Articles of Confederation. The ineffectiveness of the government prompted the creation of the US Constitution. About 55 delegates attended the constitutional convention at the Pennsylvania State House, which was the same place where the Declaration of independence had been adopted. For four months, the delegates debated on the powers and structure of the new government. Two camps emerged namely: the federalist and the anti-federalists. Just as the name implies, the federalists were the supporters of the constitution. The
In my opinion, the United States Constitution when it was first written was not just, however, after ratifying the Constitution throughout the years it has become a just document. When the Constitution was first written, it did have good points but, it still allowed slavery and did not allow women the right to vote. The 13th amendment which abolished slavery in the United States was not ratified until 74 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. African American slaves were also not considered a whole person because of the ⅗ Compromise. Women were not granted the right to vote until the 19th amendment which gave all United States citizens the right to vote was ratified in 1920 which was 129 years after the original Constitution was ratified.
The debate over the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation has been a long lasting one. In order to create a document that would adequately protect the American people and their interests’ the Founding Fathers embarked on a journey to create a document that would address all of the discrepancies found within the Articles of Confederation Therefore, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, to compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. Second, to analyze the drafting of the Constitution. Third, to compare and contrast the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
We broke away from England because we wanted to be free. We declared independance because we didn’t want a tyranny anymore. A tyranny is a person or group who has all the power to rule the land. The Articles Of Confederation were a weak first form of a constitution and we needed a new Constitution because we needed a stronger government. The Constitution was made in Philadelphia in 1787.
In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.
This paper is about how The United States moved from it’s inept first attempt at self government progressing, to the Constitution, which took care of many issues prevalent in the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionary concepts exemplified in the constitution propelled The United States onto the world stage. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, two essays and a book will be consulted concerning what people thought about the Constitution when it was first implemented and how it is perceived today. In addition, a brief history of early American government and how the Constitution came to be will be discussed. Furthermore the resulting Constitution and how it improved upon the Articles of Confederation will be discussed.