ipl-logo

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

419 Words2 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. A strong central government solves that problem because the federal government wanted to unite the states as one nation. The Constitution also says that the Federal Government would have no right

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    433 Words  | 2 Pages

    The anti-federalist wanted to improve the equality in the government this is clear with this quote "As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". The anti-federalist believed that the constitution needs the bill of rights to protect people individual rights. The federalist were a strong central government .They wanted a strong leader and they wanted the separation of powers as stated in the federalist quote. "It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

    Read More

  • The Anti-Federalist No. 84

    392 Words  | 2 Pages

    I 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.

    Read More

  • Essay On How Did The Constitution Guard Against Tyranny

    639 Words  | 3 Pages

    The problem was that the existing government, under the Articles of Confederation wasn't doing the job. It was too weak. There overall goal was to create a strong-central government without letting anyone gaining much power. Federalism Federalism is a compound republic, meaning it is made up of two governments. It is between two distinct governments which are subdivided into separate departments.

    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

  • Compare And Contrast The Three Fifths Compromise

    1157 Words  | 5 Pages

    In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.

    Read More

  • Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

    705 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

    Read More

  • Constitutional Convention Pros And Cons

    572 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Federalists supported the constitution, and wanted more power to the central government. The Federalists pushed for the constitution because it would give them more power, mainly because they were the government officials, in the central government. Opposed to the constitution were the Anti-Federalists, who wanted the Bill Of Rights not the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists believed the Senate would be too powerful and they (the others/ Anti-Federalists) would be oppressed. The Anti-Federalists wanted the same power as the Federalists, and those in the government.

    Read More

  • Bill Of Rights: Ratification Of The Constitution In 1787

    157 Words  | 1 Pages

    After the Declaration of Independence in 1787, the Federal Government turned to the creation of the Constitution in which delegates from 13 states convened to make compromises on their beliefs for the betterment of a nation. Although the Bill of Rights was initially not a part of the Constitution, the Federalists thought that it was crucial to ensure ratification of the Constitution. This ratification was one of the main reasons why the Bill of Rights needed to be added. Federalists feared a strong, central government, and created a Bill of Rights in order to prevent government abuse. Others believed that a dominating Government could prohibit rights in the future, which would not necessarily be expressed in the Bill of Rights.

    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

  • Why Did The Federalists Agree To Interpret The Constitution

    287 Words  | 2 Pages

    They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people. The

    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

  • Bill Of Rights Dbq

    407 Words  | 2 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.

    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

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

Open Document