Bill Of Rights Analysis

781 Words4 Pages
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government. One that powers would be split between an executive, and legislature, and judicial branch. This response would allow for the passing of the Constitution with the compromise of adding the Bill of Rights. The checks and balances system is discussed extensively in Federalist 51. Written by James Madison says “for…show more content…
Many were concerned about the vague language contained within it. Robert Yates in Essays of Brutus draws on the origins on government. Brutus refers to the one who stabbed Caesar to continue the republic of the Roman Republic. Robert Yates challenged the vague language by saying “a power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures.” Critical of the powers granted in the Constitution. Plays on an event that would lead to once again, a reduction of state powers. Robert Yates contends that “whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such a one to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people.” This helped to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The amendments would put the anti-federalist at ease. It would ensure that the government would not be able to restrict the people. Robert Yates also added that the language needed to be less ambiguous. In order to be still relevant in modern contexts, language would need to be more…show more content…
It was not perfect. Flaws in the weak central government, and weak state governments proved problem some. The inability to displace riots, collect taxes, and a functioning army, made effective governance nearly impossible. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist both supported arguments for their ideological differences. Mainly, differing on who would assume most of the power in the governing structure. Numerous authors explained their reasoning, and tried to show the people what implications could arise. After numerous debates, and conflicts a compromise had been reached. A central government with separation of powers, and checks and balances on those powers placed the power in the central government. The Constitution would also provide powers to the state governments. The Federalist reached a compromise to allow the Bill of Rights to be added. Thus, making allowing the passing of a new Constitution. The two distinct ideological groups were able to find common
Open Document