When the American Congress finally ratified the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation in 1788, a new three-branch government was created. This government served as a compromise between federal powers and state powers, and its system of checks and balances helped prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. However, the process toward ratification required 9 out of 13 states to agree, and concerns over an autocratic federal power led to the formation of the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights were intended to protect liberties won in the American Revolution, the reasoning behind these amendments reflected America’s deeply ingrained fear of governmental tyranny.
The violation of basic rights during British rule led many Americans to fear the powers of the …show more content…
The Constitution itself already stated what the government could and could not do, and as Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Straub). Like the Antifederalists, the Federalists also began to take an opposite perspective on strict versus loose construction of the Constitution. Hamilton took a strict constructionist stance and argued that any power not specifically granted in the Constitution is already forbade, thus making the Bill of Rights completely nonessential. Also, Federalists pointed out that state governments already had sufficient bills of rights that would cover the protection of the people. States already were granted the power to decide on laws regarding their citizens, and it seemed logical to then grant them the power to decide rights, too. If the Constitution and individual state bills of rights already protected basic rights of the people, the Bill of Rights seemed to have a further purpose than solely guarding basic
The violation of basic rights during British rule led many Americans to fear the powers of the …show more content…
The Constitution itself already stated what the government could and could not do, and as Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Straub). Like the Antifederalists, the Federalists also began to take an opposite perspective on strict versus loose construction of the Constitution. Hamilton took a strict constructionist stance and argued that any power not specifically granted in the Constitution is already forbade, thus making the Bill of Rights completely nonessential. Also, Federalists pointed out that state governments already had sufficient bills of rights that would cover the protection of the people. States already were granted the power to decide on laws regarding their citizens, and it seemed logical to then grant them the power to decide rights, too. If the Constitution and individual state bills of rights already protected basic rights of the people, the Bill of Rights seemed to have a further purpose than solely guarding basic