The Fight to Ratify the Constitution In 1787 the constitution was written at the Philadelphia convention; however, it would not go into effect until nine of the thirteen states agreed to it. This is called ratification. The constitution was quite controversial, as are many new policies. With controversy there are always two sides and in this case those two sides are the federalists and the anti-federalists. The constitution did become ratified in 1788 and took effect in 1789. Almost every issue brought up in the constitution was argued about between the two parties. Federalism is defined as a political concept in which the government power is split amongst various groups. The federalists mainly wanted the constitution to be ratified because
…show more content…
Some examples of these amendments are the first, second, and sixth. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. In short, Americans have freedom of speech. The second reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The second amendment has been both loosely and tightly translated into modern language to mean everyone has the right to have guns or that only the army has the right to their guns, and the debate is still an ongoing process. Finally, the sixth amendment reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. Ultimately this amendment is …show more content…
The candidates this election term are quite reliant on media and their ability to make the other candidate look worse than they are. This all takes money and the Citizens United decision put an end to unlimited contributions, but not entirely. Unlimited contributions can still be made to organizations not directly related to a campaign. The only ban was on contributions made directly to the campaign of one candidate. The Citizens United decision was made in order to even the playing field and try to get an honest election cycle without money being a factor. I agree with the Citizens United decision to limit contributions because it is in the countries’ best interest. As for the issue of legality, I believe it is constitutional. The right to freedom of speech was never meant to include your right to give money away. It was meant to protect the individual’s right to religion, gathering, and
Some examples of these amendments are the first, second, and sixth. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. In short, Americans have freedom of speech. The second reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The second amendment has been both loosely and tightly translated into modern language to mean everyone has the right to have guns or that only the army has the right to their guns, and the debate is still an ongoing process. Finally, the sixth amendment reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. Ultimately this amendment is …show more content…
The candidates this election term are quite reliant on media and their ability to make the other candidate look worse than they are. This all takes money and the Citizens United decision put an end to unlimited contributions, but not entirely. Unlimited contributions can still be made to organizations not directly related to a campaign. The only ban was on contributions made directly to the campaign of one candidate. The Citizens United decision was made in order to even the playing field and try to get an honest election cycle without money being a factor. I agree with the Citizens United decision to limit contributions because it is in the countries’ best interest. As for the issue of legality, I believe it is constitutional. The right to freedom of speech was never meant to include your right to give money away. It was meant to protect the individual’s right to religion, gathering, and