The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.”
At the beginning of U.S. history there were many debates on how the country should be run. People mainly argued about the balance of power between the individual person and the Federal Government. Some people and documents that addressed this issue are the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, The U.S. Constitution: Preamble and Bill of Rights, and “Jefferson: The Best of Enemies” by Ron Chernow.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This statement by the Founding Fathers is the core disagreement between the 13 Colonies and Great Britain. Throughout this historical document, there are multiple arguments made to get the authors’ point across. The authors’ effectively use logos, ethos, and pathos to contribute to the formation of the concluding argument. Logos is used because the thesis is straight to the point and it is supported throughout the entire document. The writers accurately depict ethos because they represent multiple viewpoints and they have connected themselves to the topic. Pathos is used in the document because they expressed their emotions for
Robert Yates was an Anti federalist and did not support the constitution. He arrived at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, but decided to leave early due to the fact that he did not believe in adopting a federal Constitution and left on July 10, 1787. He did not believe in a strong central government and did not have a position in the new Federal Government. He was against any concession to the federal congress that might lessen the sovereignty of the states. He stated this all in a letter with John Langston that was written to Governor George Clinton of New York, stating the dangers of centralizing power and urging opposition to the adoption of the Constitution. Yates continued to argue against the Constitution
Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese). Although the parties may have written certain things of their time that may not even apply to future situations from that point on, Meese continued to hold the belief that what was written is really meant and is not to be interpreted
Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters. Rarely would he have agreed to stray away from the true meaning of the framed principles
May 1787. 55 delegates, one long, sweaty conference. The Constitutional Convention was a huge event for the United States. During this convention, the 55 delegates from all states except Rhode Island met up to change their Articles of Confederation. Instead of editing, however, the 55 delegates rewrote the whole thing into the Constitution, which is still used today. The delegates wrote this Constitution with tyranny in mind; how could the Constitution guard against one person or group from gaining too much power? The Constitution protects against tyranny because the 55 delegates established: federalism, separation of powers, checks & balances, and equal representation.
The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
“On the Faults of the Constitution” was a speech written by Benjamin Franklin to try to explain the weaknesses of the Constitution. In his speech, he states some of things about the Constitution that he believed were weak, but I also realized that he also started to point out certain strengths in the Constitution. In certain parts of the speech, the beginning, Benjamin Franklin basically explains how the Constitution is not really good, that it is bad and tries to explain the weaknesses, but towards the end, Benjamin Franklin’s viewpoint goes off of what he wanted to first state.
The initial paragraphs of John Steinbeck’s novella Of Mice and Men introduces Lennie and George, two men living on the road, in search of a job. Both men have dreams of their own and depend on each other in order to achieve them. George takes care of Lennie, who is mentally incapable, while Lennie provides company to George. These men wander around hoping to achieve the American Dream. They continue to go after it, without realizing that they will never be able to obtain it. Motifs such as lightness and darkness, light representing hopes and dreams while darkness representing reality continue to reinforce the theme of this novella: The American Dream is unachievable to people who are discriminated because of racism, sexism and ableism.
Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
However there is no doubt that there are still problems associated with it. It never explicitly addresses the rights of all the people including slaves, or of women. It’s problematic that the constitution is so highly regarded and followed even when these groups of people are left out, due to the fact that it divides the society by race and sex, and if you were apart of the persecution, it was because you were seen to be inferior, and should not have the same rights of white men. All throughout history we have become keenly familiar with some of the costs of this problem such as how african americans have been persecuted for generations even after the end of slavery. Women weren’t treated any better when you look at how they couldn’t vote until the 1930’s. African americans and white women also weren’t allowed to have the same job opportunities as white men, and in some cases white women are still under the spectrum when it comes to high paying jobs. These facts completely refute the ideology of natural philosophy because it not everyone truly has equal opportunities in this country, which is why it’s dangerous for there being a such reverence for it. If there is such a deep respect for this sheet of paper even after it does not address all of the people is an example that not everyone who
The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer.
Abraham Lincoln deserved to be called the first statesman of America, because he really represented the saying that there are no rules in war. The constitution is the force of any country. However, with U.S during Lincoln’s administration it was the other way around as the historian George D. Fletcher says in his Our Secret Constitution that the country’s central constitutional event, the event from which it received its present meaning, is not the original founding but the civil war i.e. Lincoln took the task of a carpenter to reinterpret the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. He continues that civil
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.