ipl-logo

Bill Of Rights Dbq

407 Words2 Pages

The Anti-Federalists were correct that a Bill of Rights was necessary to guard citizens from tyranny. To begin with, the Constitution is the framework for the organization of the U.S government and for the relationship the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the nation. When the United States was being born, the Founders adopted the first constitution to the nation called, Article of Confederation which created a central government that did not have much power and most of the power were given to the state government. However, the Article of Confederation was not working because there was no chief executive, no court system, and most important that was the central government could not force a state to pay taxes.

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Barron V. Baltimore

    1009 Words  | 5 Pages

    Since the creating of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the federal government has grown in its influence over states by several Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution was established to create a limited role of the federal government over the states. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution to protect individual rights from an overreaching federal government. It was designed to be a malleable document that has been amended twenty-seven times. At the time of its inception, the Constitution was designed for minimal interference by the federal government for private citizens.

    Read More

  • Comparing The Federalists And Antifederalist During The Constitutional Convention Of 1787

    929 Words  | 4 Pages

    The main debate was about individual rights. Originally, the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. Anti-federalists insisted that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution to expressly grant freedoms to the country. On the other hand, federalist James Madison believed the Constitution was enough, and adding a bill of rights was unnecessary. As southern states did with slavery, antifederalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights.

    Read More

  • To What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution

    1024 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Bill of Rights was another topic the Federalists discussed. In a political system where government authority is derived from the people, adding the Bill of Rights “might afford the pretext for the government to claim power if it doesn’t have on the ground. ” It would provide protection against powers that have not been granted. In addition, Federalists argued the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights were included in the guarantee of habeas corpus, and prohibition of ex post facto laws. To adopt these provisions, states ratified the

    Read More

  • Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

    705 Words  | 3 Pages

    It took the convincing of the Anti-Federalists to explain how the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and did not state the rights and freedoms of the people, therefore lacking a Bill of Rights. The Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights, and later the Constitution was ratified with nine out of thirteen votes on June 21 of 1788. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the separation of powers was understood in the United States government. The separation of powers separated each branch of government.

    Read More

  • Ratification Of The Us Constitution Dbq Essay

    827 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

    Read More

  • How Did James Madison Contribute To Government

    739 Words  | 3 Pages

    The U.S. Constitution was meant to replaced the Articles of Confederation and provide the people with an insight on all of the rights and for the government to abide by them. However, there were people that did not want the Constitution ratified and there were some who did. The ones who opposed the ratification of the Constitution were referred to as the Antifederalists. They feared that with a strong government, the federal government would have too much power in their hands and would do as they pleased. The Federalists, the ones who supported the Constitution, disagreed with the Anti-Federalists and stated that with a strong federal government, the United States would eventually evolve into a better country in the future.

    Read More

  • Differences Between The Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists

    842 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Antifedera records stressed that a solid national government would manhandle their rights similarly that the British government had. To relieve their feelings of dread, the Federalists consented to make the Bill of Rights. These alterations to the Constitution explained what rights the general population had that the national government couldn't meddle with. For instance, it said that the national governmer couldn't encroach on individuals' rights to the right to speak freely or religion. The Bill of Rights likewise said that any rights not given to Congress or taken from the states had a place with the states.

    Read More

  • Differences Between The Articles Of Confederation And The Anti-Federalists

    1100 Words  | 5 Pages

    They believed it was essential that individual rights were explicitly stated so that citizens were informed and could defend their own liberty (Cornell, 2012). The Federalists initially believed that a Bill of Rights was not necessary, as the states retained any rights and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. Seeking to get the Constitution ratified, the Federalists agreed to write a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights Institute, a non-profit foundation that aims to educate students, explains: The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech.

    Read More

  • The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

    99 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Federalist And Anti Federalists

    138 Words  | 1 Pages

    Another reason for this belief was people didn't have guaranteed rights. In conclusion this belief among others led to the Anti Federalists fighting against the constitution. The Federalists and Anti Federalists thoughts on the bill of rights like everything else was different. The Federalists believed that the bill of rights was useless. Anti-Federalists thought it was essential to making sure that peoples rights were kept safe.

    Read More

  • Explain Why There Is No Need For The Bill Of Rights To Be Written By The Federalists

    419 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Federalists believe that there is no need for a Bill of Rights to be written in the Constitution. Unalienable rights, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and all rights and responsibilities were already spelled out in detail in the Constitution. By creating a Bill of Rights, it would put too much power in the hands of the states; which would just create another confederacy type of government with little power to act. If each state had its own government, they would be very weak and they would probably be eliminated within a year.

    Read More

  • Explain Why People Should Approve Of The Constitution

    229 Words  | 1 Pages

    Us federalists believe that the Constitution is fine as is. The constitution does not need a Bill of Rights that will only limit the rights of people rather than protect them. We believe the constitution is required in order to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution gave us. Many influential figures also take our side in this situation such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, as well as James Madison. To go along with many of this nation’s leader supporting our point of view there are also many others that feel the same way.

    Read More

  • Anti Federalists Feared A Strong Central Government Essay

    665 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the Bill Of Rights, there our 10 different Amendments. The different Amendments prove the the Anti-federalists feared the strong central government, and desired a limited government, and had protections of basic freedoms. The Bill Of Rights show that they feared a strong central government because Amendment 9 was included into the Bill Of Rights. Anti-federalists feared a strong central government because Amendment 9 talks about how no ones right will be taken away.

    Read More

  • Anti Federalist Paper No. 67 Analysis

    886 Words  | 4 Pages

    A bill of rights is necessary to hold up the constitution and the people's rights as it will be used in future generations. Yates then goes on to explain, “It's not true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the federal Constitution than in the State constitutions...being the most recent will replace every other agreement that went before it. Since it's a plan of government ratified by the people, it will be superior to all other governments that went before it. “ Being more recent than any other agreement, the federal constitution will replace all other agreements in use before it, making it even more important to establish a bill of rights. It is important to design a bill of rights in our current constitution, seeing as it will replace

    Read More

  • Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

    445 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective

    Read More

More about Bill Of Rights Dbq

Open Document