In the Fall of 1787, upon reading the proposed Constitution of the United States that had recently been sent to the colonies for ratification, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “What think you of a Declaration of Rights? Should not such a thing have preceded the model?”1 Jefferson wrote to James Madison later that same year: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”2 In another letter to Madison, Jefferson stated more definitively: I do not like…the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of habeas corpus, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by law of nations.3 Thus, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” had a dilemma in winning ratification of “his” constitution. Should a bill of rights be added to the proposed constitution? Originally opposed to the addition of a bill of rights, Madison, always a true advocate of those rights, eventually accepted that a bill of rights should be adopted. It became necessary to gain acceptance of the proposed Constitution,
The Federalists obviously opposed the Louisiana Purchase for political reasons, not practical because they hated Thomas Jefferson. "I am disgusted with the men who now rule us. The coward at the head [Jefferson] is like a French Revolutionary," (Pickering, 1803) stated Timothy Pickering in a letter to Rufus King. This shows, clearly, that federalists only care about opposing Thomas Jefferson, not opposing the Louisiana Purchase. Most federalists, although some had very good reasons for opposing the constitution, only cared about hatred for Mr. Jefferson and with that hatred for all of his ideas.
Today you can voice your opinion and write what you believe. However there once was a law in place that went against that freedom. It was called the Sedition Act, it went against the first amendment of the United States constitution, and it turned the political parties against each other. It caused many people to become angry because their freedom to talk and express their opinion had be taken away. The reason I request for its repel is because it was a violation of the first amendment, turned political parties against each other, and because the only reason the Sedition Act was made was because of the president’s wife.
The politics of the newly independent country were shaped by the founding fathers’ past experiences with the British monarchy and parliament. They had to remember why the country left England originally and establish a government that avoided the mistakes Parliament made. James Madison warned in The Federalist that government had to monitor and control itself to control the citizens (Doc I). To do this, a bicameral legislature and three branches of government were created to balance the political power; to avoid one branch from gaining too much power the branches were able to check each other. In addition to the formation of the government, laws were passed to protect the colonists’ rights.
In Virginia, they decide on freedom to exercise which, the other colonies and Britain had to some extent but they took the extra step and said that government should "not establish religion" so no government taxes for any religious groups. This is the model that the Founders adopted in the 1st
Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and women in the U.S. government have faced their own kind of discrimination. These groups have had different political resources available to them, so their struggles have taken in different ways. For Native Americans, some improvements have been made. Supreme Court failed to support religious freedom for Native Americans, but some lower court orders have supported their rights. According to my
The American government constitution one of the oldest document in the world and it is clear for their citizens on the justification of to have an equal right and opportunity by the eyes of American government laws. The American government comes in different ways by the difficulty of citizens struggling. Since the beginning of the thought of democracy till the right of to create the constitution in the long run of the 27 Amendments. The American government structure had a clear understanding for American citizens and for others. The American government systems started with the ideology of democracy that to give a right of the first amendment for the American citizens.
Rousseau’s writings On the Social Contract critiques many aspects of modern society, including the use of representatives in most governments. With this critique, Rousseau attempts to persuade the readers that having a representative form of government is tantamount to being enslaved. This begs the question, is modern society wrong to use representative forms of governments or is Rousseau being courted by a utopian visage? Rousseau is persuasive in his arguments, however the impracticality of populaces sans representatives is a firm counterbalance. Rousseau’s main argument against the use of representatives in the political sphere is that utilising representatives thwarts any attempt at truly reaching the general will of the citizens.
Same-sex Marriage For decades, humanity has been working towards the same goal, but during all these years, people have been unable to achieve it, selfishness is the reason why people are unable to do it. This goal is “Equality” this term is defined as “The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability” (Dictionary.com). This is unachievable due to the lack tolerance between human beings; this is well known in the human species as racial, sexual, religious discrimination, etc. In the modern era most types of discrimination are rejected in the common society, but most forget that discrimination is not only rejecting a person for their beliefs or personality but it’s also denying them the ability to access the same rights as the others. Gay marriage is a controversial topic in the world, 94 out o 196 countries have signed a General Assembly declaration of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender rights or sponsored the Humans Rights Council 2011 resolution on LGBT rights however, only 18 countries have approved the same-sex marriages, this is extremely preoccupying because this shows how terribly unequal we are.
They wanted to establish the Bill of Rights to form a boundary between the rights of the people and the government. Anti-federalists believed that vague clauses had given the government power that was unapproved
In an article by Procon.org, it states “The Founding Fathers enshrined the Electoral College in the US Constitution because they thought it was the best method to choose the president” (The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons). This is important because the Founding Fathers created the Constitution to establish the rules of the nation, basically to keep the peace. They figured that if they set rules and precedents in place, there would be tranquility. Without the government, there would not be life, liberty, and property. It was not easy for George Washington and the others to establish this new rule.
Courtney: Political parties are an essential part of the American government system, yet the Constitution does not mention them. The Framers feared these political parties, because they thought of them as factions. Factions are groups of people who fight only for their interests, and not for the common good. They feared a faction would control the government and refuse to protect the rights of the people. ISIS is a harmful faction that branched off of al-Qaeda.
Patrick Henry was one of those famous powerful figures, patriots, who provided support for the antifederalists. Anti Federalists were in debt and they feared a strong central government who would make them pay-off their debts. They thought that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and there was no bill of rights, thus, they opposed the ratification of the constitution. As shown on Document G, even in a political system, with checks and balances, a certain branch can be too powerful, which can lead to tyranny of the common people. This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval.
The federalists were the ones who believed that the United States needed a stronger centralized government to represent and defend our country. They supported the Constitution, and proposed that the division of the powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches would avoid any president from becoming an absolute dictator. Even though these two groups had different point of views and had different set of beliefs, they all aimed for the same goal, to modify the constitution of the United