Hearing all these things about the ratifying the constitution or creating a new constitution from scratch really has my mind working. You have the federalist, the people for ratifying the constitution and no Bill of Rights and the Anti-federalist, the people for creating a whole new constitution and having a bill of rights. I have to say that is not much to go off of right there but there is a whole lot more when you go into depth, I am for the anti-federalist. Why, you may ask? Well, for one the Bill of Right is going to be set in stone except for a few exceptions, the bigger states will now have more power than the smaller ones, there will not be a ruler from thousands of miles away, and finally there will be a Bill of Rights to give you
…show more content…
I, being from New York which is a larger state, would want more power than little states like Massachusetts. Why should they have the same amount of power in the house of representatives as everyone else when they are only a fraction of some states? In the Bill of Rights they will make sure the smaller states do not have equal power. “ In which the smallest state has equal weight with the largest … That it is not necessary for the public good, (Dewitt).” I would want more people in the House of Representatives and have more say on political things going on in our country because we have more people. More people means more voices and more opinions. Now, people from the smaller states may not agree with it but, you have to put yourself in the shoes of both the people in the larger state and the smaller state to see why is a good idea. Would you want the smaller state with a fraction of the people have the same amount of votes as the larger states? Would you want the small state to vote to against something that does not affect them and it does not get passed because the smaller states are overpowering? Of course …show more content…
Our rights will be set in stone for us and not leave us wondering if we have the right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech. We do live in a free country but we might as well have those things inscribed in paper. The bill of rights will give us more detailed description of our rights than the new constitution. With a very straight forward constitution you might not understand if something is actually part of your rights because there is no detail and you may get confused. You would not want that to
I, being from New York which is a larger state, would want more power than little states like Massachusetts. Why should they have the same amount of power in the house of representatives as everyone else when they are only a fraction of some states? In the Bill of Rights they will make sure the smaller states do not have equal power. “ In which the smallest state has equal weight with the largest … That it is not necessary for the public good, (Dewitt).” I would want more people in the House of Representatives and have more say on political things going on in our country because we have more people. More people means more voices and more opinions. Now, people from the smaller states may not agree with it but, you have to put yourself in the shoes of both the people in the larger state and the smaller state to see why is a good idea. Would you want the smaller state with a fraction of the people have the same amount of votes as the larger states? Would you want the small state to vote to against something that does not affect them and it does not get passed because the smaller states are overpowering? Of course …show more content…
Our rights will be set in stone for us and not leave us wondering if we have the right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech. We do live in a free country but we might as well have those things inscribed in paper. The bill of rights will give us more detailed description of our rights than the new constitution. With a very straight forward constitution you might not understand if something is actually part of your rights because there is no detail and you may get confused. You would not want that to