Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A summary about the constitutional convention
Constitutional conventions essay
Short essay of constitutional convention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A summary about the constitutional convention
The first thing I have learned from the role play Constitutional Convention, is that the first discussions are very important. I am certain that the preliminary discussions are important because they give understanding between factions, help other members stay on the same page, and because that is when thoughts of motions are to be created. The discussions between different groups help other groups make deals, and help them understand the needs that other groups have. If the factions were not to have discussions before the voting, then when making motions, people would have to make the motions hoping others would agree. While by talking with other groups, you can discover the other groups needs. Another reason why the discussions are important is because the discussions before the actual making of the motions assure that at least one faction would …show more content…
concur with the idea. The discussions could also help the people who are part of the factions understand what is going on. If a member of the faction is confused, then they would not be able to genuinely participate in the final discussions. On the other hand, during the consultation between group members, participants can understand why things are going on. The final reason why they are important is because that is when motions are thought of. During the discussion, factions can create deals and discuss them with other groups. While you can still do this without the discussions, your argument would be stronger if you did do the discussions. Ultimately, the preliminary discussions are, as a matter of fact, the most important part of the Constitutional Convention. Another thing I noticed, is that I have learned many lessons in the process of the Constitutional Convention.
One of the lessons that I have learned, is that you have to consider on what other groups want and do not want. If you do not do this, then when you try to make a deal, they may turn it down. Although if you do plan of this, then you can persuade them with other wants or create a different deal with other factions. Another lesson that I have learned is that you have to plan on when groups actually turn down a deal. During the convention I also noticed that when you plan for this, you can make other deals you can benefit from so that you can get the same things out of the original deal. Some other lesson that I learned from this experience, is that to have a strong argument, the ability to reiterate your statement is needed. By doing this, persuading others in controversy could be easier. These lessons are important to me because in the future they can be used for different persuasion methods and that it has given me insight on what might have happened during the actual Constitutional
Convention. The last important detail I have noticed from the role playing, is that the factions greatly affected the final decisions. For example, because of the different factions, a lot of the decisions were along what the richer people wanted. Most, if not all, of the arguments were against the slaves. This is because the wealthier people including the workers, bankers and merchants, and the plantation owners, were in greater numbers and that they had the motivation to keep the slaves out of their social, economic, and political life. After choosing that slavery is still legal, all the other controversies including slaves were easy to conclude. Although this is true, I find that the slaves sort of contributed to the final ideas. For example, when we were discussing the rules on importation of slaves, they amended it so that in 20 years, the importation of slaves may be abolished. I have also noticed that when arguments that were mostly about passion and not facts, they were very weak. When this occurred, the users of passion usually lost to their controversy. Overall, the choices that were made in the end, truly dependent on the types of factions.
You may be thinking how did the constitution stop tyranny? Well we have the answer. Let's start of with what tyranny means, that a leader or king abuses their power. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? Well they abuse their power bad deeds. The constitution guard against tyranny in these four ways. Federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and small states vs. large states.
This Convention was about the Articles of Confederation and went through it and debated on how to make revisions to it. John Rutledge was ahead of many committees even the committee that drafted the first version of constitution.
The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t hold up my head in town, I couldn’t represent this country in the legislature.” (Lee 100).... ... middle of paper ...
The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.
The constitution establish major governing institutions, assign institution’s power, place explicit and implicit control on power granted. All this gives the political legitimacy. The U.S constitution gives the base model for state constitution for Texas.
The Constitution is the foundation of our county it represents liberty and justice for all. We are able to live freely and do, as we desire because of the constitution. The constitution was, signed September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It took time and many debates were held before an agreement was achieved in both the drafting and ratification of the constitution. These disagreements came with several compromises before the constitution was fully ratified on May 29, 1790, with Rhode Island being the last and the thirteenth. The First, challenge was the Articles of Confederation; it was a sort of a draft of the Constitution but was weak and inadequate. Second, obstacle was the Anti-Federalists fight for more
Although the Constitution was put in place to protect the people, there is much debate about the strength and weaknesses of the Constitution. If you lived in this era, would you for or against the Constitution? The pros and cons of the Constitution seem to be based on geographical location, with the primary goal being breaking free of Britain control and establishing a functioning government that we all can live by. The boundaries of slavery stood in the midst of forming a more perfect union. Creating a more perfect union had its’ own agenda such as setting boundaries for state governments, securities, commerce, and the welfare of the people. In establishing the Constitution, it was decided that three branches government should be in powers
The first step of the Constitution was undemocratic. No popular vote was taken either directly or indirectly on the proposition to approve a convention (Beard 14). The group of men who wanted the convention was skillful in getting it approved in that their proposal of it was a surprise. This gave the Federalists an upper hand. Their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, could not refuse to a discussion of possible, and perhaps necessary, reforms. By refusing, they could lose the support of the public very easily (Roche 18).
How Democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl is an interesting novel questioning the reliability of the American Constitution. Dahl brings up many interesting points and queries in the novel that really strike a chord with anyone who has had similar thoughts before, including me. His main first argument stating that the Constitution is essentially outdated is what caught my attention the most, with his argument that the Constitution needs to be more democratic coming as a close second. These are the two main arguments I’ll be focusing on as they’re ones that I’ve thought about prior to reading this book in previous government related classes.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
Although no agreement was made, this simulation taught me a lot about dealing with group negotiations. The hardest part of this whole thing was that I had to deal with multiple parties, each with their own strong opinions. Overall, I am very pleased at how I handled myself and don?t think I would do much differently in the future. However, as is always important in business, I need to make sure my emotions do not interfere with the task at hand. I cannot take no?s as a personal rejection, but rather try to understand why they said no, and how I can persuade them to choose otherwise. Another thing that I will practice in the future is not to give up my strategy if an argument arises. I always try to do a mix of the Push and Pull styles and cannot let others move me from this middle. When the FED rejected the proposal I was suddenly turned into a Push Style negotiator and thinking back, that was not the right move.
“Every right implies a responsibility; Every [sic.] opportunity, an obligation, Every [sic.] possession, a duty,” quoted by John D. Rockefeller, an American industrialist. Since America is a superpower, where else would this be more true? For the continuous success of the United States, it's important for all citizens to give back in some sort of way so our society can function. This calls for the use of our individual strengths to produce something we can all enjoy together. It's not just about the survival of America, but the innovation, and evolution of our country.
The Constitution is the skeleton of the United States. Nothing the United States does goes against what our leaders have interpreted The constitution to stand for, but interpretation is subjective. Without a standard lens to view this historical and legal document with, it is virtually worthless. The three primary viewpoints each have appealing characteristics to them. I think a mix between all three interpretations is the most sensible way to look at The Constitution, but Constructionism should be the predominant perspective on The Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution, Americans should consider the frame of society, but view The Constitution as a document that means what the founding fathers intended for it to be, and when all else fails, interpret the language exactly as it is written.
I begin with a simple premise. The Constitution was divinely inspired. It is based upon truths and principles of God set forth by foreordained men. The Lord desired a nation in which liberty, especially freedom of religion, was a right ensured under law. He inspired men penning the document to include in it certain protections.The existence of these safeguards would create a far better framework for the Restoration of the Gospel than could be found elsewhere.
A constitution is often defined as the main body of rules either written or unwritten, which describes the government and its method of operation. Besides a constitution just being a set of rules which governs an organisation, it goes into much deeper depth. According to Thomas Paine, he reveals that a constitution is something that is pre-existing to a government, giving legitimacy and defining powers under which a government may act. Due to Britain’s unwritten constitution, there was a sense of ambiguity in the word and whether if there was a constitution at all. Ironically, United Kingdom was once described as ‘the mother country or modern constitutionalism’. This goes to show that constitutionalism here does not require the existence