What Is The Difference Between The Constitution Pros And Cons

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’. I support a strong government that is closer to the people, however, where the people are still allowed self-governance. I fear this government may have the same weakness on the people as Great Britain once did. The Constitution threatens the civil liberties and it will impose a government in which
…show more content…
The Judicial Review is a dangerous power that takes the form of an oligarchy that I strongly disagree of. The authority of the courts to have the power of reviewing the actions of Congress is dangerous and shall not be decided upon by the courts. It allows for that group to manipulate the system in their hands with what they believe themselves to be right and wrong or considerably constitutional. However, that is all too much for just a few people to have the decision to decide. I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, the people should not claim rights which they have not allowed the government to regulate because they already belong to the people. Opponents to this argument will say that the powers given in the constitution are too ambiguous and could be poorly construed. They also questioned the harm in having a bill of rights, and believe there is already a truncated bill of rights in the constitution in the protections of individual…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The issue with letting Parliament decide on these matters is that Parliament is under pressure from the majority, which can lead to enacting draconian measures against who they fear is the enemy, which is usually a minority with little protection . The courts are removed from this pressure and can question the need for new polices that Parliament may introduce which can infringe on human rights . The legitimacy of the judiciary comes from that fact that it has to have rational arguments, its decisions must come from a legal authority and the judiciary is independent from politics ensuring an unbiased opinion . This gives legitimacy to judicial decisions against unjust laws passed by the government. This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals.…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved 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

    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.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved 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

    Final EXAM Part II: C Antifederalists vs Federalists Debate Tyranny and the New Constitution Antifederalists like George Mason’s objected to the new Constitution based upon their fear that the National Government would hold too much power and become tyrannical. The main objection that most Antifederalists shared was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights to protect the rights of citizens. Mason argued that since the national laws held supremacy to that of the State laws the “declarations of rights in separate states [were] no security” (EA pg. 16). In addition his confidence in the new system’s structure was stifled in part due to the shadow of representation bestowed in the House of Representatives.…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They argued that the government would need to use force to keep its people in line, the necessary and proper clause was dangerous and that a bill of rights was necessary. The Anti-Federalists did not believe a national government could exist at that time without military force. They said in column 1, box 2 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper that “The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate...the only way the government would be able to rule would be through the use of military force.” This Anti-Federalist quote explains that communication was not good enough to keep everyone informed about elections, laws and national news. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of this since that is not unlike what King George did when he introduced The Quartering Act or closed down boston harbor after the boston tea party. The Anti-Federalists thought that the new government would turn into a tyranny.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although we have many rights, we unknowingly give many of them up to our political society; our government. One government, however, cannot guarantee safety and self-preservation to all its subjects through the “social contract” Hobbes adheres to. They must pick and choose who is worthy of this even if everyone has innate rights. This judgment is not dictated by one’s loyalty to the government, instead, it is motivated by self-interest and prejudice that constantly fluctuates from leader to leader who decides what group or individual has freedom. Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time.…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    When the power lies fully in the general will there is no true order or direction. I believe people should definitely have a huge say in government and how it affects their life, but I firmly believe that there should be at least one authoritative figure who can make final decisions. Even Rousseau acknowledges that mistakes can come from not having a specific idea of what sovereign authority is (71). There should be someone who makes the final call, if not one individual then a small group of representatives that people vote into office. Rousseau wanted the people to be able to govern themselves because of the negative way he saw the King govern his citizens.…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays