Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

Improved Essays
Congress decided their current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, had many flaws. It was too weak to stop things such as Shay’s Rebellion. Because of this they organized a convention, many state representatives showed up, but some did not because they were pleased with how it was and didn’t want to change this. The people who were against changing the Articles of Confederation are called Anti-Federalists, and people that were for this are called Federalists. As a Federalist I believe the people of the United States should ratify the Constitution because we would fall to pieces without it. In Federalist paper 84 they say there is no purpose for a bill of rights because it is dangerous and unnecessary in multiple ways, such as allowing the government to gain more power than it is granted. Also in Federalist paper 51, they talk about the importance of maintaining separate branches and protecting the rights of the people. However, anti-federalists strongly disagree with these claims.
There shouldn’t be a bill of rights because including a listing of rights would only make the people feel as if those are their only protected rights, which aren’t their only protected rights. In Federalist paper 84 it states,”The Constitution itself is a bill of
…show more content…
One might argue that the reasons for the constitution weren’t stated clearly. However, if they were stated precisely it would make the people believe to have those rights protected. If the people believe the rights are protected while they aren’t people would become furious. This would only have a negative effect. Some might also believe that too much power is given over to the federal government, yes it will have more power than it did, however their powers will be limited. The Constitution will protect the state governments. This won’t overpower the government like you may think, it will actually have a very positive

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It became clear soon after the Articles of Confederation were implemented that the document had certain flaws that weakened the newly created United States. A new document, the Constitution, was drafted to replace the Articles. Many people supported the Constitution, but some disagreed with it. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists provided valuable insight into the creation of the Constitution. Some of the arguments presented by the anti-Federalists were that it lacked a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee citizens freedoms; that the strong central government would be unable to govern such a large territory; and that the government that was established was too close to the British system they had just overcome.…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    During the ratification debates of the US Constitution, there was conversation over the necessity of a bill of rights to define people’s rights and limit the government’s powers. Many federalists believed such a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but would weaken the constitution and the people, and give the government powers they should have. Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson each make arguments against a bill of rights. Webster argues that a bill of rights may be irrelevant in future generations, but people will be reluctant to change or add to it. Hamilton believes that the bill of rights is unnecessary because the constitution itself is in terms a bill of rights.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Founding Fathers Journal Constitution: By all means, I did not support the decision made to ratify the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution does not completely serve as beneficial for the people. This national government imposed in the Constitution does not serve to protect the liberties of the people. A government so strong can only seek to control the people in the states’. I oppose the Constitution because it will risk the sovereignty of the states’.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Anti-Federalists fought for a Bill of Rights to be included within the Constitutional framework governing the federal government so as to explicitly codify individual rights under the law. Their skepticism regarding the nature of government recognized state action and the liberties of the individual citizen are typically antithetical in nature and in need of explicit protection. Some Federalists on the other hand were actually fearful of such methods, worrying that explicitly listing the rights of the individual was an inherently limiting approach to liberty – with the idea that those which were not listed were not fundamentally retained by the people. James Madison stated, “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” James Madison original position prior to Constitutional ratification and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution inherently restricted the powers of the national government to those that were clearly defined.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Reserve Clause suggests that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited by the federal government are reserved for the states of the people. This strict interpretation would restrain the powers of the government. The drawback of strict interpretation is that there could be circumstances in which something that needed to be done, couldn’t be done without a Constitutional amendment. This can be a problem because it is not easy to amend the Constitution, and this can be a problem when there is an urgent matter that cannot wait for an amendment to be passed. Eventually the Republicans loosen their interpretation of the Constitution and become increasingly more…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He was essentially against sanctioning the Constitution since he thought it gave the legislature an excessive amount of force. He had faith in the privilege of every states should have separate power, however joined…

    • 90 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One of other main concerns with democracy is that with rule by a majority you will in turn sometimes suppress a minority. By doing this J.S. Mill believes that there is a greater chance that the truth will stifled and by consequence of doing that people will only see one side and believe that the side that is seen is true. The issue with this for Mill is that it would be foolish to believe that any one opinion is the whole truth. By giving the majority control in a democracy and allowing their opinions to be made law by popular vote is not something that the government should be capable of doing according to Mill.…

    • 1140 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They were given this responsibility by Parliament and it is an important role they must fulfil. The judiciary tend to use deference on national security matters because they are not experts on the issue. However, deference might not be the correct decision in all cases because most cases are on matters of procedure, rather than expertise; in those cases the courts should not refuse to decide the cases on the basis that they are security decisions and outside their expertise . The fact the government and Parliament are best placed to assess risk for national security can be questioned since they were wrong on the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion . Their decision making can always be questioned by the fact that Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot in the head on the assumption that he was a suicide bomber when he was not .…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They are people who are against Federalism and oppose the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and believe that the Constitution allowed the federal government too much power and didn’t provided state and local governments with enough. They think that the government is overstepping their power through things such as the doctrine of implied powers, the Commerce Clause, many aspects of the Civil War, and through racial and sexual equality. Yes, the federal government has grown in power but their fear of them taking over the state…

    • 1368 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays