Those fears were unwarranted because the Constitution, did not allow the government to oppressed the citizens of the nation. Because of the checks and balances written in by the founding fathers. These checks and balance made sure that the government would always do what the will of the people wanted. Jefferson would not compromise and lobbied his policies instead. He even went as far as to say “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers…alone.
Tyranny is when a person or a group of people have absolute power. The idea of the Constitution came when some believed the Articles of Confederation were weak. The Article of Confederation were weak in ways such as weak central government, no money so they could not tax, boundary disputes, states are fighting and arguing and no respect for small nations and states. While framing a new Constitution James Madison was worried that this Constitution, that was meant to guard against tyranny would possibly lead to some form of tyranny. With the careful writing from our founding fathers the Constitution guards against tyranny by using a system of Checks and Balances and the system of Separation of Powers.
The Articles of Confederation made up America’s first constitution. This constitution was hastily and poorly made and solved the problem of a lack of government in America. The Articles were designed to limit the government’s power over the citizens. The Articles of Confederation also did not include anything about an individual or a president to guide the country. This was because of the colonists’ past experience with Britain’s king and him having too much power over the people.
Liberty: The Preservation Then and Now I. Preface “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Madison, 1). Madison uses this example to express that men need a strong government. The previous governing document of The United States, The Articles of Confederation, emphasized the freedom from national authority but ultimately failed. People, mostly the Antifederalists, were scared for a document that put such a great amount of power back into a national government; the last thing they wanted was a tyranny.
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
They feared without it, their rights would not be acknowledged. They felt that the Constitution only favored the wealthy men and their power. The anti federalists were afraid of a strong central government when it came to the government taking over their property and using them. For example, the 3rd amendment states that homeowners should not be obligated to open their homes to soldiers and the soldiers should not be allowed to take over one 's home. This proves that they had to address this issue for something to be done to stop this, they must have been feeling like their lives were
This document (the Federalist) will provide all the reasons to support the new plan of government described in the U.S. Constitution, and responses to each of the criticisms of the plan. Opponents to the new plan criticize it most on it creating a strong central government that will be abusive to individual liberty. However, an energetic government is crucial to the protection of individual liberty. The plan of government under the Articles of Confederation was unable to effectively protect individual liberties because it did not act directly upon the people, and had no authority to enforce its laws. One of the biggest problems resulting from the Articles of Confederation was that there was no means to enforce unity amongst the states.
But, with Helvidius, clearly George Washington was not acting like a president in this instance, but more so a king. He does not hold the authority to proclaim such a thing, and what does that say for the American word? As you can see, both sides have very strong cases and there are key points from both sides which makes it very hard to decide. If I had to decide I would agree more with Helvidius. George Washington believed that proclaiming neutrality was the way to go, which is completely fine, but there were other ways to go about doing it.
Not many people today, nor back then really agreed on many things such as should wars happen, the way the government should be taken care of, and who should run for office. However, Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela thought otherwise. These three intellectual individuals reflect the spirt of optimism and individualism, however only Gandhi and Nelson Mandela made a true change for their community. Many people might know Henry David Thoreau because of his famous essay titled “Civil Disobedience”. In this essay Thoreau describes how he doesn’t want to be part of a nation that declares that they’re an “equal” government that declares they’re being “equal” when really majority always ruled.
Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands of a government. People argue that going against the government is not right and that it is breaking the law. Although in some cases it may not be right, it does not mean it is breaking the law. The Declaration of Independence states, “... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” meaning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness then, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Bill of Rights Institute). The government should respect the people and provide safety and happiness.