Ratifying The Constitution

Think of the word tyrant. Now just imagine that there was a simple and easy way to stop him or her. That’s what the constitution has done for the U.S.A. Our Constitution has protected us against tyranny since the day it was drafted. The constitution is an official document that was written in May 1787 in the city of Philadelphia Pennsylvania. The purpose of the constitution is to form a central federal government, to form a separation between federal and state rights, and to give personal liberties to its citizens.

The first way that the Constitution helped with the weaknesses of the United States were the different ways it made passing laws more fair. When amending a document the Articles of Confederation needed 13 out of 13 people to approve of the document. The Constitution provided a more reasonable way by having ⅔ of both houses and ¾ of the state legislature. This is a better method because not 100% of people are going to agree on everything. The same type of thing worked when passing laws. 9/13 people needed to approve in the Articles of Confederation while it’s now 50% +1 of both houses plus the signature of the President. This allows for things to be more fair and it makes sure everyone in power somewhat agrees on what is going on and not just a couple of people are deciding on what the citizens new laws will be.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

In 1787, the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification by the 13 states, but not everyone agreed with it. There were two groups of though. One was the Anti-federalists, who opposed the Constitution and the other group were the Federalists, who supported it. The Anti-federalists were people who supported the Articles of Confederation because they were doing well under them. They were mostly poor people from rural areas and were supported by the big states. They believed that the Constitution did not secure their rights and gave the central government too much power. The Federalists were mostly the wealthy people who lived in or near city areas and were supported by the smaller states. They believed that the separation of

     In order to control the effects of a faction, Madison said that the government needed to have a checks and balance system. By doing this, factions are prevented from getting too powerful. This is the reason why the Americans clearly put a checks and balance system in the constitution. In the constitution, these rights are guaranteed (Ziegler 216-220).

After the Founding Fathers of America wrote our Constitution there was one more step they had to each achieve in order for it to go into effect: ratifying it. In order to ratify the Constitution nine out of the thirteen states had to agree to adopt it. The process of ratifying the Constitution turned into a debate between two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalist.

Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to

As our nation’s history has shown we have made mistakes in our past and been forced to learn from those mistakes. We have taken certain ideas and beaten them to death at times. The members of the constitutional convention of 1787 did the same thing as they were trying to decide what should be written in the constitution and how the government should be structured. Many plans were presented and rejected as the members argued until finally a great compromise was made and the structure our government for finally started to take shape.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

Question: What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and the opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the U.S Constitution?

The founding fathers wanted to create a constitution because many believed that the national government had to be stronger than what it had been with the use of the Articles of Confederation. But at the same time they were fearful of human nature and how often it could be seen in the history of other countries such as Britain, for people in the position of power to infringe on the rights of others, by becoming hungry with power. Taking this into account, they wanted to create a government with another power to keep order and to govern. But also make sure there were sufficient checks put in

Confirmation of a constitution is a strong move that makes the drafted document the law of the specified land. It should be supported by majority parties involved. As an editor of the New York newspaper, I do not support the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 because it tends to conquer and violate some necessary procedures. I believe reasons such as defects in the post-revolution War articles of confederation and lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce that lead to the drafting of the document was not substantial enough initiate the documentation of the constitution. The material happens to lack fare terms that apply to all the parties, therefore, could not be signed or ratified into law. The document

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.