Dear Editor,
During this constitutional convention, I’ve noticed things that were said on the federalist and the anti-federalist side. I have taken the side of the federalist and agreed completely on what they all have said. We have covered all subjects such as: Separation of powers/checks and balances,the elastic clause, Congressional powers of taxation and war, and A bill of rights. When discussing the separation of powers, we all agreed that having a checks and balances system would suit us best; therefore, there won’t be any one person in charge there would be three branches of government. The three branches are Legislative, Judicial, and Executive, which would be put into place to maintain unity and equality. As the discussion continued, we conversed on the elastic clause. The elastic clause granted congress the ability to pass all laws essential and legitimate for completing the identified rundown of forces. As for the anti-federalist, they believed that there should be a strict constitution; however, they didn’t want to have a government that would overpower the people. The federalist on the other …show more content…
We concluded the laws of the government to the individual people of America must be expanded; we must get rid of the deceptive plan of shares and orders as just as impracticable and unjustifiable. Each perspective we may take of the subject, as real enquirers after truth, will serve to persuade us that it is both abrupt and hazardous to deny the national government an unconfined power in admiration to every one of those articles which are endowed to its administration. On the off chance that we grasp the fundamentals of the individuals who contradict the funding of the proposed Constitution as the standard of our political belief we can't neglect to confirm the miserable orders which foresee the difficulty of a national framework swarming the whole furthest reaches of the present
During this constitutional convention, I’ve noticed things that were said on the federalist and the anti-federalist side. I have taken the side of the federalist and agreed completely on what they all have said. We have covered all subjects such as: Separation of powers/checks and balances,the elastic clause, Congressional powers of taxation and war, and A bill of rights. When discussing the separation of powers, we all agreed that having a checks and balances system would suit us best; therefore, there won’t be any one person in charge there would be three branches of government. The three branches are Legislative, Judicial, and Executive, which would be put into place to maintain unity and equality. As the discussion continued, we conversed on the elastic clause. The elastic clause granted congress the ability to pass all laws essential and legitimate for completing the identified rundown of forces. As for the anti-federalist, they believed that there should be a strict constitution; however, they didn’t want to have a government that would overpower the people. The federalist on the other …show more content…
We concluded the laws of the government to the individual people of America must be expanded; we must get rid of the deceptive plan of shares and orders as just as impracticable and unjustifiable. Each perspective we may take of the subject, as real enquirers after truth, will serve to persuade us that it is both abrupt and hazardous to deny the national government an unconfined power in admiration to every one of those articles which are endowed to its administration. On the off chance that we grasp the fundamentals of the individuals who contradict the funding of the proposed Constitution as the standard of our political belief we can't neglect to confirm the miserable orders which foresee the difficulty of a national framework swarming the whole furthest reaches of the present