Essay On Section 9 Of The Government
To the People of New York State: Just a short while ago we embarked on the journey to regain our liberty from tyranny. The unalienable rights in which our nation was founded have guided the establishment of our government. The purpose of government, political philosopher John Locke believed, is to secure and protect the unalienable rights of the people in which it governs. However, when a government fails to do that, people have the right to alter or abolish it, forming a new political system in its place. As people, we possess the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. WE THE PEOPLE have established a new government through the Constitution. Therefore, we do not have to protect our unalienable rights from …show more content…
We can unanimously agree no government or person in charge should become too powerful. Provisions are already emplaced in the Constitution preventing this fear and securing the rights of the people. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution establishes writ of habeas corpus and prohibits ex-post facto law and titles of nobility. Alexander Hamilton writes these provisions are “greater securities of liberty and republicanism” than anything a bill of rights would include. Why have a list of liberties that can’t be impeded when the power to impose those restrictions was never given? Hamilton backs up the foolishness of this question by stating, “the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.” The Constitution advocates for what our nation holds to the utmost importance, the people. There is no need to re-secure the liberties given to the people and states by adding a bill of rights. I ask of you to consider the Constitution itself a bill of rights, as it creates a limited government in which the people are free to govern themselves and their rights are to be …show more content…
By specifying liberties cannot be obstructed, what is to be said for the liberties that aren’t endorsed in a bill of rights? Having a bill of rights suggests that if not included in it, that right is permitted by the government to infringe on said right. Furthermore, does a bill of rights forbidding the national government from acting in certain domains elude the government has power to act in others or at all? This ultimately ends up giving the national government a great deal of power that within the Constitution is granted nowhere. Opponents of the Constitution say they are fearful the national government will be too strong. So why are they in favor of adding a bill of rights which would ultimately end up intensifying the power of the national government they are so hesitant to
The Anti-Federalist No. 84
392 Words | 2 PagesI Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
Magna Carta Mayflower Artifact And The English Bill Of Rights
650 Words | 3 PagesWhen our founding fathers were writing the constitution for our new nation, they looked at many different sources to gain thoughts on what they should include in the document. Some of the documents that the men looked at included the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, and the English Bill of Rights. When the people in America decided that they needed to be able to have freedoms that the king wouldn’t let them have, they decided to break free of Great Britain. The Americans realized that in their new nation they wanted to make an establishment causing the government to have limited power over them because they wanted to be free.
To What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution
1024 Words | 5 PagesThe 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
Ratification Of The Us Constitution Dbq Essay
827 Words | 4 PagesHence 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.
Constitutional Convention Dbq Essay
1222 Words | 5 PagesThe initial lack of a Bill of Rights was the chief objection of the antifederalist[footnoteRef:8] The antifederalist were concerned over local control of civil liberties. However, Federalist insisted the because the Constitution gave the federal government only certain delegated powers, a Bill of Rights was not needed.[footnoteRef:9] Additionally, federalist argued that enumerating individual rights could be dangerous because it may be interpreted as a comprehensive list, thus forfeiting unmentioned rights.[footnoteRef:10] Eventually, the Bill of Rights was adopted and ratified. However, the Bill of Rights was not as comprehensive as Thomas Jefferson had proposed.[footnoteRef:11]
Bill Of Rights Dbq
314 Words | 2 PagesIn trying to figure out if the first congress wanted to adopt the constitution or not they realized that they did not want it to be a repeat of how the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. The founding father seen that as an example of what not to do therefore they can focus on what would be better at the time for congress and United States. This is why the U.S. Bill of Rights was to be constructed in way to organized citizen’s actions. It was like giving a rule book to the people in protecting citizens therefore they feel protected by their government.
Differences Between The Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists
842 Words | 4 PagesA Bill of Rights was included 1791. To a limited extent to pick up the help of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists guaranteed to include a bill of rights if the Anti-Federalists would vote in favor of the Constitution. Like how they felt about whatever is left of the proposed government, the
When Was The Constitution Written In 1787
410 Words | 2 PagesThe bills of rights are rights that every person has. The original Constitution did not have a bill of rights. The government cannot take these rights away. It was passed because some people were afraid that the government would have too much power. They were afraid important things would be made illegal.
Explain Why People Should Approve Of The Constitution
229 Words | 1 PagesUs 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.
Constitutional Convention Dbq
1379 Words | 6 PagesThe Bill of Rights also changed the government and transformed it for the better. The government is the way it is because of the Philadelphia Convention. The delegates knew that America would evolve and adjust so they offered some protection. They didn’t want the constitution to hold back the country from developing, so they inserted a law in Article Five stating that the government could make changes or amendments to the constitution. This crucial decision has benefited generations.
Difference Between Confederation And Constitution
1226 Words | 5 PagesThe faintness of the articles of confederation brought conflict between the two sides in a scenario where the Federalists argued that the ratification of the new constitution would be beneficial to the country while the Anti-Federalists opposed their rivals’ stance ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). However, the major issue of the debate concerned the annexation of the Bill of Rights in the constitution. On the one hand, the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, believed that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was not necessary since the government and not the people were limited by the constitution ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). On the other hand, those opposed to the constitution such as John Hancock argued that failure to include the Bill of Rights in it meant that the government would be stronger, therefore threatening the sovereignty of the individual states ("The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -", 2018). Anti-Federalists also debated that the system created by the new constitution would threaten the liberties as well as fail to protect the rights of
Essay On The Bill Of Rights Anti Federalists
432 Words | 2 PagesDid you know that the Bill of Rights for the Constitution wasn’t even considered until anti-federalists argued about it? Although the Constitution benefited the United States with basic principles and laws, it had much more flaws than benefits. It made the national government too strong because they were able to tax states, it gave the President too much power, and there was no Bill of Right included. One major flaw in the Constitution was that the national government has the power to tax states. According to Brutus, “State governments know best which taxes are the most appropriate for their states.
Essay On The Seventh Amendment
714 Words | 3 PagesThe reason that most Antifederalists did not support the new Constitution was that there was no list of individual freedoms and rights. That is why the Bill of Rights was created. What is the Bill of Rights? The United States Bill of Rights is a famous document that is made up of individual rights and amendments, or changes, to the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution allows citizens to amend the Constitution.
Analysis Of Chapter VII From Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass
1305 Words | 6 PagesThe U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. This established America’s national government, the fundamental laws, and guaranteed basic rights for the citizens of America. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the power the national government had was to strong and that it would lead to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson stated “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth” (Brookhiser). James Madison agreed with Jefferson and recognized that by listing specific rights, known as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would remind citizens and members of the government that those rights were inalienable.
Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary
445 Words | 2 PagesThe 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
More about Essay On Section 9 Of The Government
The Anti-Federalist No. 84
392 Words | 2 PagesMagna Carta Mayflower Artifact And The English Bill Of Rights
650 Words | 3 PagesTo What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution
1024 Words | 5 PagesRatification Of The Us Constitution Dbq Essay
827 Words | 4 PagesConstitutional Convention Dbq Essay
1222 Words | 5 PagesBill Of Rights Dbq
314 Words | 2 PagesDifferences Between The Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists
842 Words | 4 PagesWhen Was The Constitution Written In 1787
410 Words | 2 PagesExplain Why People Should Approve Of The Constitution
229 Words | 1 PagesConstitutional Convention Dbq
1379 Words | 6 PagesDifference Between Confederation And Constitution
1226 Words | 5 PagesEssay On The Bill Of Rights Anti Federalists
432 Words | 2 PagesEssay On The Seventh Amendment
714 Words | 3 PagesAnalysis Of Chapter VII From Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass
1305 Words | 6 PagesRobert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary
445 Words | 2 Pages