Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing articles of confederation and the us constitution defining the union
Compare and contrast articles of confederation and us constitution
Role of the bill of rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States Constitution was written up by delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, when many of the country 's leaders realized that the Articles of Confederation, the set of laws that the country had been following up until that point, were creating more problems than solutions. Once it was written, and approved and signed by delegates in 1787, it was sent to the 13 states for ratification. But many of the states saw flaws in the document, and refused to agree to it until changes were made. Both the writers of the Constitution and it 's critics were invaluable to the shaping of the final document. A few of the major flaws pointed out by critics were the lack of a Bill of Rights, the unlikelihood of one government ruling over such a widespread nation while remaining democratic, and doubt that such varied people would be able to exist under the same government without constant turmoil. The supporters of The consensus was that a single government with that much power would prove to be too strong of a temptation to power-hungry men, and that power could be easily taken by forces that did not necessarily have the nation 's best interests in mind. Many people felt that government officials could behave in anyway they wished, without consequences. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, objections were made by many delegates, saying that it was impossible for a single government to rule over such an extensive nation without corruption, and that the checks and balances system was not strong enough, leaving many high-up officials with little to lose if they behaved dishonorably. Supporters of the Constitution countered these objections by emphasizing the three-house checks and balances system and the limit of the presidency to 2 4-year terms, plus the allowance for
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
Being very different from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution gave the foundation for the legislature and kept each branch in check, assuring none would become too powerful. With the large and small states finally in agreement, ratifying the constitution was the next step. September of 1787 the final draft, containing around 4,200 words, was created by the Committee of Style. George Washington was the first to sign the document on September 17th. Although 39 of the original 55 signed the document, the delegates of Massachusetts were unwilling to approve the document. Nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the document in order for it to become law. To help gain popularity for the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay made essays. There were 85 total essays and they were distributed in newspapers across the states. Those who supported the document were referred to as Federalist and those who did not support the document were known as Anti-Federalist. The first states to ratify the Constitution were Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Connecticut. Massachusetts still strongly opposed the document, saying that freedom of speech, religion, and press were lacking protection. An agreement was made in February 1788 that the document would be amended to include what was lacking upon ratification. With hesitation,
Some historical circumstances surrounding the issue of the ratification of the Constitution was weakness of the new government under the Articles of Confederation which led to the Constitutional Convention. Members of Congress believed that the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States, needed to be altered while others did not want change. This desired Constitution created a huge dispute and argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The people who supported the new Constitution, the Federalists, began to publish articles supporting ratification. As stated in document 2 John Jay (Federalist) had many arguments to support ratification of the Constitution. One argument John Jay used was, with the ratification of the Constitution, he says, “…Our people free, contented and united…” The Antifederalists had numerous arguments they used to oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists believed that a free republic wouldn’t be able to long exist over a country of the great extent of these states.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
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).
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The Constitution that was created had a strong central government and weaker state governments. Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power to levy taxes, regulate trade between the states, raise an army, control interstate commerce, and more. A three-branch government was established in which a judicial branch handled disputes in a federal court system, a President headed an executive branch, and a legislative branch. Conversely, the anti-federalists believed in weak central and strong state governments, as the way it was in The Articles of Confederation and believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The constitution is the cornerstone to how the U.S. operates legally, unfortunately many times the government attempts to find loopholes and skirt around these pillars of America. An easy example is the 4th amendment, “protection from unreasonable searches and seizures”.
The constitution created as a base for the entire United States of America Written by the founding fathers in 1787. The founding fathers being a group of wealthy old white guys. Not necessarily an unbiased representation of the population back then let alone now. A biased writer creates biased works. A biased constitution can be considered flawed. Flaws stemming from the writers, the rights unwritten, and the changing times. To best understand the origin of where some flaws begin one must look at the original writer's.