Examples Of Free Republics

1365 Words 6 Pages
There are no examples of free republics in our history. The republics of Greece and Rome were on a much smaller scale. Both of these republics extended their rule over large territories. As a result, their governments were changed. They no longer had free governments, but now tyrannical ones. I am in strong opposition to the Constitution, specifically, Articles One and Two. In the proposed Constitution the government possesses absolute power. I believe that it gives Congress too much power, it takes power away from local governments, it gives the President (Executive Branch) too much power, and the representation needs to be changed, just to name a few. The central government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak, but the one that …show more content…
It would not be possible to find representatives who are familiar with all parts of the continent. Our state governments should guard our interests and rights. They would understand the people so they could more closely relate with them. The experience of local government in the New World is very appealing. The result of such a government would be a completely changed society where people are honest and virtuous. In the Constitution I see a government driven by ambitions, but in my mind I have small-scaled governments envisioned. In small-scaled governments, citizens would be free to live their own lives. The other kind of government as laid out in the Constitution would entail taxes, drafts, offices, and wars that would damage human dignity and thus, be fatal to self-government. Large power governments are not to be trusted. Liberty could only be protected in small republics. A large nation would be best be governed with local governments having the most control. Centralizing all of this power would not turn out well. If we approve this Constitution, the government will quickly be on its way to an aristocracy. I do believe that the national government needs greater powers to deal with other nations, but I fear that security would be gained, and individual liberty would be lost. This very reason is why I am in favor of states rights instead of one central …show more content…
It is not equal because all states have to send the same number of members to the Senate, even the smallest states. Slaves increase the proportion of members. In Article One, Section Two of the Constitution we are given the Three-fifths Clause which reads, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” This basically says that representatives will be proportioned among the states according to the number of free people and slaves that they have. Salves have never counted for anything in our government, so it is not fair to count them now. If they have no say in our government then why should the number of members be increased because of them? It does not seem very logical to count slaves who are technically not even people, but not count sheep, oxen, and cows. All of these things are just property. It makes no sense to count the slaves in with the people, yet still be able to import

Related Documents