Monday, February 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Federalists and Anti-Federalists Arguments
Blog Archive
Rebuttals
Online Resources and Blogs
Presenting an argument
(1.) Choose a party/position and an individual/persona to represent in our online debate
(2). Using the Who were the Supporters and Critics of the Constitution? hand out, create a one paragraph argument/position statement. Argument identifies party's opinion on ratifying U.S. Constitution and bill of rights in six to eight sentences. Report with your first name and period, final draft in Comment box posted to Anonymous.
(3.) Reviewing the arguments/position statements of the opposition and posting THREE original and effective rebuttals to THREE DIFFERENT arguments. Each rebuttal is one paragraph long (6 to 8 sentences) Rebuttal blog is linked on the right column
(4.) Submitting a copy of this assignment sheet to C.Doyle for evaluation of your final product.
(2). Using the Who were the Supporters and Critics of the Constitution? hand out, create a one paragraph argument/position statement. Argument identifies party's opinion on ratifying U.S. Constitution and bill of rights in six to eight sentences. Report with your first name and period, final draft in Comment box posted to Anonymous.
(3.) Reviewing the arguments/position statements of the opposition and posting THREE original and effective rebuttals to THREE DIFFERENT arguments. Each rebuttal is one paragraph long (6 to 8 sentences) Rebuttal blog is linked on the right column
(4.) Submitting a copy of this assignment sheet to C.Doyle for evaluation of your final product.
I John Jay as a Federalist believe in the Constitution. The Constitution should be ratified due to the fact that the national government must be strong. Our national government would be very good at protecting our rights because that would be their job. Since there are three branches they can do check and balances on each other so neither can have more power. Also there is separation of powers so each branch has different powers so that they cannot become corrupt. If the Constitution does not get ratified we are doomed.
ReplyDeleteJake Period 1
Chris Pd 1 argument Federalist John Jay
ReplyDeleteI John Jay as a federalist believe in ratifying the Constitution. As a Federalist I know that if we do not pass the constitution we will be destroyed by some selfish groups because we would be such a small republic. A large republic, where the government was organized with checks and balances, and power was divided between the national and state governments would be better. If we have such a small republic we will be destroyed so we need this to pass. Our national government would be very good at protecting our rights because that is their job. We have branches so we could checks and balances on each other so they can check on each other’s power. This constitution must get ratified
I, James Madison am a Federalist, and I strongly believe that the Constitution is a fabulous document, even without the bill of rights. This is true for me because the bill of rights is unnecessary. The Constitution has a good amount of power for the government, and having three branches of government is a good idea. The bill of rights is unnecessary because the powers of the government were limited anyway and by having the bill of rights it would almost be saying that the people could only expect protection of the rights actually listed. This is not good because we want more than just protection and the Constitution provides all of that. Also, I believe that the Constitution gives the government a fair amount of power and nothing needs to be changed. Having three branches of government is a wise choice that greatly improves upon the system established by the Articles of Confederation. Each branch should be strong for the national government to be able to complete all of the responsibilities required of it. Separate branches this allow a balanced government and by having the checks on each branch’s power, no branch can get too strong. Therefore, this is a smart idea to include in the Constitution. In conclusion, I am choosing to ratify the Constitution without making any changes to it and voting against the assertion that we need the bill of rights. The Constitution is establishes the right form of government and is a good document to follow.
ReplyDeleteMaddie
Period: 1
This new country needs to have a central government that is strong and effective. The Constitution states the government will have checks and balances so that no one will have too much power. It is also states that there will be a separation of powers so every group will have specific jobs they need to do, no one small group or one person will have too much power. Our country should ratify it to avoid becoming a tyranny like England. We will have a government who will make the best decisions for the country as a whole. We don’t need a bill of rights because that would limit the power the government had, and only the peoples’ rights that are listed will be protected, not all of the rights people are given. As a Federalist, I feel these points are very important and we will become a more successful country because of them.
ReplyDelete-George Washington/Claire p.2
I, George Washington, am a Federalist. I think the Constitution is fine just the way it is. It does not need a bill of rights. With the new system of checks and balances, no one can gain too much power. If one branch gets out of line, the other two branches can push them back. There is no way our new president will be tyrannical because if he does we can impeach him. If he even starts to become too powerful we can check him and pull him back a little. The other branches of government can decide when one branch has gotten to powerful and they can do something about it, this is how the system of checks and balances works. Also, with the new division of powers, everyone has their own boundaries and jobs that they are each responsible for. No one has total power, and it is impossible for one to gain total power. The government can only rule the way the citizens want it to rule. We will be very safe from a tyranny under the Constitution; in fact we are probably in danger of a tyranny without the Constitution. Right now, there are no laws to protect our freedom; powers can not be divided until the Constitution is ratified. Right now, anyone can gain total control. This is why I believe the Constitution should be ratified.
ReplyDelete-George Washington/ Megan Newhard Period 2
Belle Hutchins period 2
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison, am proud Federalist and strongly believe that the Constitution is perfect as it is. The Constitution is great document that can lead to many opportunities for the United States, which can lead to success in times to come. This document will help protect our rights without becoming allowing the government to become a tyranny. We have placed many limitations on it including the checks and balances and the separation of power so no branch or person could gain and abuse too much power. The national government would obtain more power than they had before, but that will only help us. The Articles of Confederation failed because the government had too little power and could not control anything or anyone. We fixed that by making a stronger central government, so we can have a more effective government so people can obtain freedom and keep their natural rights. The last benefit of the Constitution is we would be creating a strong Executive branch. This is necessary because it would allow the national government to fulfill its responsibilities without creating a monarch, the Congress and the Supreme Court would check on the executive branch’s powers so there is no abuse of power. Let’s not repeat the past that had a poor government, no freedom and no rights,let's create a better future with a Constitution.
I’m Federalist James Madison, and there is absolutely no need for a bill of rights in the Constitution. In the Constitution there is definitely a limited amount of power that the federal government would have. And each state would still have its own government for the more local problems. Like the federal government won’t get in the way if a state is taking a vote to build some type of library. The national government is more for the laws that everyone has to follow. If a bill of rights is put into the Constitution, everyone would expect that only those rights would be protected, and that is not the case. Any rights that you could think of, would be protected if it needed to be. So clearly I think, as a Federalist, that the U.S Constitution should be ratified exactly how it is right now. –Joey Period 2
ReplyDeleteJohn Jay Says:
ReplyDeleteAs a Federalist, I strongly believe that the U.S. Constitution will be a great success and should be ratified as it is. A bill of rights is not necessary because we have the three branches under control due to the system of checks and balances. No one branch can become to powerful or take away our natural rights. Anti Federalists may say that rights of the citizens can only be protected if they are listed on a bill, which is incorrect. The preamble does a good job of describing our rights and makes sure we are protected at home, and as a country. The Constitution promotes general welfare, helping us when we are in need. It’s important for us to have a strong executive government we need a strong leader to help make decisions for our country. When the Articles of Confederation were in effect, the central government had close to no power, leaving the states lawless. The government couldn’t declare war or force states to obey laws and pay their taxes. The president needs power and through the Constitution, he gains it without becoming too powerful because of the system of checks and balances. Everything he does must be approved by the Legislative Branch. He may not declare war or make laws without its consent. He can help our country by negotiating treaties with other lands, making us more friends than enemies. Having a large republic supported by three branches will guarantee us a life of justice and liberty which is why I’m confident that if we ratify the Constitution the way it is, America will prosper.
-Rebecca, period 2
My name is George Washington and I think that we should leave the Constitution as it is and ratify it. An Anti-Federalist would argue that the government will get too much power but it will not. It is true that the government will have more power then it did when it was under the Articles of Confederation. But the government will be limited to what they can use their powers for. They will be able to use their power for things such as trade, currency, and defense. From past events we know that we need a stronger national government to deal with the problems stated above. The Constitution will provide good protection for the state governments so that they will not be destroyed by the national government through federalism. The limitations placed on the government by the system of checks and balances and separation of powers will prevent the government from becoming a tyranny. Lastly, I do not think that we should add a bill of rights because of all of the limitations that the government will have under the existing document. We don’t want the government to be so limited that they will not be able to make choices. I think that the Constitution has enough limitations so that the government will not have too much power.
ReplyDeleteSean Pd 2
I, George Washington, as a federalist, strongly support ratifying this Constitution and find a bill of rights completely unnecessary. A stronger national government is needed to solve problems that the entire nation will face. For those who fret about the government getting tyrannical, the system of checks and balances and separation of powers in the government limit its power. The Constitution protects the rights of the people and assures people that their state governments cannot be destroyed by the national government. In this system the common welfare would be the priority, and not the goals of special interests. To address the needs of the nation as a whole the government, the necessary and proper clause is essential but the government will always be kept in check under the separation of powers and its system of checks and balances. The executive must be strong but it cannot dominate the other branches because of our balanced system. The executive branch cannot evolve into a monarchy because Congress and the Supreme Court can check its use of power. Lastly, the powers of government are already limited and restricted and a bill of rights would be too excessive. Specifically listing the rights of the people is dangerous because everyone is already entitled to those rights naturally, documenting them would create unease because anything not listed the government could assume is illegal. The bill of rights could actually limit our rights by not listing rights we know naturally have.
ReplyDeleteSanjay Period 4
John Jay says:
ReplyDeleteI, John Jay, truly believe that the original draft of the Constitution is perfectly fine and should be ratified by all 13 states just as soon as possible. Some people do not agree with my beliefs, however, they have no actual proof as to why a bill of rights should be added to the Constitution. I, as well as my fellow Federalists, believe that there is no need for a bill of rights! The national government, so mentioned in the Constitution, has very limited power and therefore could not, as the Anti-Federalists think, become a tyranny and destroy state governments. The national government would be so great that the people’s rights would be even more protected then they are today, and thus, gaining the respect and loyalty of the citizens. The Constitution is just fine and should be ratified as soon as possible! So in conclusion, there is no need at all for a bill of rights in order to ratify the Constitution.
-Jack Foley Period 4
Ben Schuman Period 4
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington says…..
As a Federalist, I strongly believe that the Constitution is fine the way it is, and it should be ratified. The national government would be so good at protecting the rights of the people that it would soon gain their loyalty and support. The government is more powerful than it would be under The Articles of Confederation, but it’s not going to be too powerful because we will be limiting their power using checks and balances. That is so much more organized than it would be the way the anti – federalists want it. Proposing a bill of rights makes no sense because the Constitution is fine the way it is. The clauses may say that the national government has the power to promote general welfare to the people, but they’re still limited by the other parts of the Constitution. Sign the Constitution.
Elizabeth Per.4
ReplyDeleteFederalist’s argument
As George Washington, I believe that a strong executive branch is necessary for the national government to fulfill its responsibilities. As the Commanding General of the Continental Army, I lead the American people to victory during the American Revolution. But because of the limits upon the government imposed by the Articles of Confederation, we had trouble funding the war. The Constitution will insure that no one branch gets too powerful and no one branch can dominate the others because of the systems of checks and balances and separation of powers. Also, the Constitution allows the Congress and Supreme Court to check the executive branch’s power to ensure that they don’t become tyrannical. As you can see America would have a more stable and organized government if they ratify the Constitution.
As a Federalist, I, John Jay, am a strong supporter of the establishment and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not serve as a sufficient government document, as the lack of a central basis for national decisions defeated the idea of our country as one community. The Constitution proposes that enough power goes to the government to make collective decisions affecting our nation as a whole, but not enough to become tyrannical. While the common concern over the absence of a bill of rights is understandable, a collection of specific rights leaves room for the taking away of rights that aren’t directly listed. The power limits described in the Constitution, however, protect all the people’s rights without naming particular ones. Our society is in dire need of a reshaping of government, and ratifying the U.S. Constitution will achieve just that.
ReplyDeleteShea pd. 6
I'm a Federalist, my name is John Jay. I am a Federalist because I believe that the Constitution is a strong document that protects the people’s rights. There is no need to have a separate document explaining what the people’s rights are because in the Constitution, the powers of the government are limited. The Constitution also gives power to the Supreme Court and Congress, to check in on the executive branch so that it does not become a monarch through the system of checks and balances. The Constitution also protects the state governments and prevents them from being overridden by the national government through limited government and federalism. In conclusion, the Constitution doesn’t give the government too much power; therefore the bill of rights is unnecessary. The bill of rights would only give the people protection. The Constitution has potential and it protects the people’s rights and should be ratified as it is.
ReplyDeleteperiod 6
Dave
As a Federalist, I, John Jay, would like The U.S Constitution to be ratified as it is. The U.S Constitution should be ratified because the current version of it does not include a bill of rights, a bill of rights would be an un-necessary hassle. A bill of rights is not necessary because if there was a bill of rights it would specify the rights that the people expect to have protected. The people expect all of their rights to be protected by their government. If the bill of rights is put in the government will say that they are only accountable for the rights that are listed and no others. We can not list all of the rights the people expect protected in The U.S Constitution, because it would take too much time and space to figure out the rights the people want.
ReplyDeleteKirsten Pd.6
Brandon
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Federalist Argument
George Washington
The United Sates Constitution should be ratified because the government would not be over-powered and could not be under this system. The government could never become a tyranny because three branches make up the U.S. government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) under the Constitution. Each branch has checks and balances on each other so no one branch can have more power then any other. The Constitution provides safety for the state government so it can’t be overridden by the national government. The government’s sole purpose is to preserve and protect the natural rights of the people and without a Constitution it cannot effectively do so. The Constitution was created for this exact reason and accomplishes this task. In conclusion, if this Constitution is ratified our society will not become tyrannical and over-powered, each level of government will be equal, and the government will be doing what it was made for.
Erica Ripperger
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Argument:
As a member of the United States of America, I, James Madison, believe that that the US Constitution should be approved with no drastic changes. A bill of rights is a complete waste and unnecessary. As a Federalist, if you take a look back in history you will see that small republics were abolished by greed. By creating a large, national government with checks and balances, society will have a definite improvement. We will split our government into three branches, Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The Constitution will protect the rights of the people, but the government will not become a tyranny. Limitations will be set on the government power. Each branch will have a system of checks and balances placed on them. For example, the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch can “check in” on the Legislature to make sure they haven’t obtained too much power. This is important since each branch will have an equal amount of power and the government won’t have too much power. This will be nothing like the Articles of Confederation. The government will have the power along with us, but we can use that to our advantage. Tasks that can include the nation, currency, and defense can be made by these government officials. The bill of rights only includes a few things that we have to protect the people against. We don’t want to set limits and have the people think we only protect them of the things listed. In conclusion, the Constitution should definitely be approved.
I, James Madison, and we the Federalists, support the Constitution and believe that it should be ratified and does not need a bill of rights. The national government would be very good at protecting and not violating the rights of the people. The people would realize that the national government would never violate their rights and the people would give the national government their full support and loyalty to them. This would never turn into a tyranny because there would be limitations on it by using the system of checks and balances and also by the separation of powers. By using checks and balances, the other parts of the government can control each other so none of one part of the government gets too powerful. The Constitution would have the separation of powers and it would divide the power to make the governments power equal. By using these systems, the government would not get too powerful, and there wouldn’t need to be any military force. Also, the government would protecting us and making good, fair decisions and would be controlled so it won’t become too powerful. We don’t need a bill of rights on the Constitution because it’s already perfect and if we add more to it, there will be too many limitations. The Constitution and the government don’t need any more limitations. The Constitution will make everything fair and should be ratified.
ReplyDelete-James Madison-
(Allison Lee, Per. 6)
Argument
ReplyDeleteOona pd. 6
US Constitution
Federalist
George Washington
I, George Washington, am a Federalist, and I believe that we should have a constitution. The Constitution gives more power to the Federal government. Although Anti-Federalists may say that the Constitution gives too much power to the Federal government, and not enough to the people, a strong government is important to deal with problems affecting the whole country. The power of people is protected without a bill of rights. There is no way the government can become a tyranny because the government is separated into three different branches. Each branch checks the other ones to make sure no one gets too powerful. Having a strong government is extremely important so the country can deal with problems. A bill of rights is not needed.
AJ Gold
ReplyDelete2/23/10
Per. 6
S.S.
I, John Jay, a Federalist believe that the Constitution should be ratified just the way it is and that a bill of rights is not needed. The last thing America needs right now is small republics, which have been taken down in the past by selfish groups. Although the national government will have more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation, it will still be limited to a point where it can’t take over. The government can trade, control the currency, and defense of the country, but it doesn’t have such a large amount of power where it can take over and control the U.S. like King George did because of the separation of powers presented by the system of checks and balances. Not only that, but the national government could protect the rights of the people, which could easily earn the people’s support. Also, it wouldn’t transform into a tyranny because of the checks and balances system where no one branch can get too powerful, so the government will stay intact. Overall, with the points above, I believe that the U.S. Constitution should be ratified as it is.
Alexander Hamilton...
ReplyDeleteAs a Federalist, I believe that the Constitution should be ratified as is. Throughout history, most republics have become tyrannies. Our government will be different; through the power of checks and balances, our nation would be able to maintain state and national governments. These governments will be an agreement between the governor and the people that is protecting everyone’s rights. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government had a small amount of power which will not help deal with such problems as trade, currency, and our nation’s defense. With our national government, three branches would split rule evenly, including the people within the government. To maintain a nation without a ruler like King George, the Constitution should be allowed in its current state, without a Bill of Rights.
ELizabeth G.
Period Nine
Claire Rothfelder
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
I, James Madison, think that the Constitution should be ratified. The central government would be stronger than it was in the Articles of Confederation, but not too powerful. The Articles of Confederation showed that the U.S. needs a strong central government. It would not become a monarch because there is a system of checks and balances, and the power is equally divided among three branches. The executive branch needs to be strong so it can help run the government. The executive branch would help enforce the laws and it will not get too powerful because the government is balanced. The general welfare clauses are important because they would make sure that the government provides the general welfare of the people. In conclusion, the Constitution is a good system of government and should be ratified.
David
ReplyDeletePd. 9
Federalist
My name is George Washington and I am a Federalist. I am for the Constitution being ratified for several reasons. One reason is that I think that a Constitution is a good idea for America because it will allow one specific government to protect America and be responsible for keeping our country safe. However, you Anti-Federalists are saying that having a Constitution will cause another tyranny. I say that it won’t because there are limitations to the government so they can’t make people do whatever the government says. Having a Constitution will not cause another tyranny because the limitations placed on the government by the system of checks and balances and separation of powers. In addition, in order for a law the president must pass the law through a whole crowd of government officials. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can veto it which means that they are sending it back and it can’t be used. Therefore, ratifying the Constitution will make America a safer and better country.
Sam Per. 9
ReplyDeleteMy name is George Washington and I am a Federalist. I think that we should ratify the Constitution. One reason why the Constitution should be ratified is because the Articles of Confederation failed and we need a new plan for our government. Under these articles our national government was given very little power. They had such little power that it made it hard for our national government to deal with some of the problems that they were faced with. In the Constitution it gives the national government more power but it uses a system of checks and balances so that one of the three branches does not get to powerful and achieve complete control. Also, if a problem occurs, the national government will have the power and the ability to deal with it quicker and more efficiently. We should definitely ratify the Constitution so that we have a powerful and stable government.
I, John Jay, say that the United States needs the Constitution to be ratified because we need a stable government. After the Articles of Confederation, our country was scrambled and it was proved that we need a strong central government. Many people are frightened of the prospect of an over powerful central government, but the government set up by the Constitution can’t be come tyrannical because the checks and balances, along with the separation of powers, will keep the government from becoming too powerful. . The problems that the national government will face will only concern the entire nation, so the small problems for each state can be solved for the good of the state. A strong central government has been needed to do this in the past, and such a big country, that is still expanding, will need a very strong national government. There is no way that the government can fail, and we need it to be ratified quickly as possible, so whether you are a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist you should ratify the Constitution now.
ReplyDeleteOlivia LeWarn Pd. 9
Shannon pd 9
ReplyDeleteFederalist
I, James Madison, and my fellow Federalists believe that we should ratify the Constitution. Many of the Anti Federalists are scared that the government will have too much power if we ratify the Constitution, but this is not true. The Constitution gives each level certain powers. For example, the National Government has the power to deal with national issues; the State Government’s have the power to deal with issues that regard that specific state; and the Local Governments deal with the local issues. The Constitution also splits the government into three branches that all have an equal amount of power. These branches all follow a system of checks and balances so that no branch gets too much power. This means that no one person will ever gain too much power. The Constitution should be ratified because the government will not have too much or too little power under it.
Jake Per 9
ReplyDeleteHi, my name is John Jay and I am a Federalist when it comes to the US Constitution. As a Federalist, I believe that America should ratify the Constitution to give our central government rule over all Americans. All Anti-Federalists would agree with us because our central government would get too much power and we might have to live through another tyranny. But this scenario is impossible to repeat because we have a system of checks and balances like Montesquieu devised before our time and using this system, no branch can get more power than the others. Also, if the government officials do not protect our rights, we have the right to remove them from office. Under this system we will reach a happy medium between a complete tyranny and “everyman for themselves” (like the government established by the Articles of Confederation). The Anti-Federalists might argue that the Executive Branch has too much power under the Constitution but it doesn’t because Americans all vote on our Commander and Chief and Congress has the ability to banish him from office. As the first words of the Constitution’s preamble state “We the people……” means that the power and control of America relies with in every single one of us.
Federalist Debate Paragraph
ReplyDeleteI am a Federalist arguing for the ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. We should do this because we are going to use a system of checks and balances, there is also a separation of powers so the government officials have less to worry about thereby allowing them to do their job better, and we also will have a strong executive branch, which means strong leadership. Furthermore, since the national government is limited in its power (so as to not become a tyranny) it’ll quickly get the respect of the people. We must also remind the Anti-Federalists that this is the second kind of Constitution that we have made. The first, The Articles of Confederation, were considered a failure. We can use that as a learning experience so that now, we know how much power we should give to the federal government. Going back to the system of checks and balances, it will ensure not one branch takes absolute power. The executive branch would also not get too powerful because in the constitution, it states that the president may be impeached for a crime he committed and thereby be removed from office.
Will Murtishaw, Pd. 1, George Washington, Federalist
I George Washington, a Federalist, believe we should ratify the Constitution. I believe there should be a Constitution because the national government would protect the rights of the people, by splitting the government into three branches no one would have too much power, and it would be organized with a system of checks and balances. The government would have many limitations, so it could not become a tyranny. It would also gain the colonists loyalty and support. The Constitution would allow the Congress and the Supreme Court check the power of the Executive Branch. That way it can’t form into a monarchy. Also, a system of checks and balances would make it a lot harder to violate terms, like common welfare, in the preamble. Lastly, if we had the Articles of Confederation the governments’ powers would be very limited. They can’t deal with trade, currency, and defense. A strong government would be able to deal with those topics.
ReplyDeleteSophia; Period 1
I, John Jay, a federalist, support the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution is the best way to run our country because it includes a strong central government, divides the power between national and state government, and uses a system of checks and balances. As was proved by the Articles of Confederation, a weak national government splits the nation apart and is not appropriate for governing our country. The trick to a strong, united nation is to have a strong central government, which is what the Constitution calls for. People don’t have to worry about the central government getting too much power, because power will be divided between the national and state government. National issues go to the national government, and local issues go to the state governments, that way, nobody gets too much power. Also, no one branch of government-whether it is legislative, executive, or judicial-can gain too powerful either. The system of checks and balances that the Constitution includes allows all the different branches to check up on one another to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do. If one branch does get too powerful, or does something unlawful, that person or people will get impeached.
ReplyDeleteAudrey
Period 1
Mary Rippe pd. 1
ReplyDeleteThe ratification of the Constitution would be a firmly positive impact on the people of the United States. The Constitution proposes a more advanced and healthy form of government that lacks the ability to become tyrannical. An abuse of power would be unrealistic because of the checks and balances that the Constitution imposes upon the three branches of government. The checks and balances system further allows the national government to be able to successfully manage greater power because of the limitations set upon them. Each branch of government is granted specific powers and limitations so that no other branch could dominate the others. Due to the limitation of the national governments power, and by the fact that the people will be granted more power, the government will never become tyrannical. Lastly, the three branches of governments will always follow the system of checks and balances. If a branch choses to make a treaty with another branch, then those two will become corrupted and fail, and neither branch wishes to fail. Overall, the Constitution is a nessesity for a forever succesfull America and will help to organize our government accordingly.
My name is George Washington, and I strongly believe that the Constitution is perfect the way it is and deserves to be ratified. I truly stand by this because the Constitution excellently divides the power between the national and state governments, and adds the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, instead of one person in power through federalism. Also, the congress can check the executive branch so that no one branch can achieve too much power and become a monarchy. As far as a bill of rights goes, it is completely unnecessary because the powers of the national government are controlled. A bill of rights would imply that those who live in America would only have those right protected that which were listed. I think the Constitution needs to be ratified now.
ReplyDeleteBy Nora, pd. 1
Federalist
Sara H.
ReplyDeletePd. 1
I, Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, do declare that the Constitution effectively protects the rights of its citizens and beautifully paints a portrait of the government we should live by. Using this Constitution we do not have any need for a bill of rights you Anti-Federalists so claim we need. The Constitution sets limits called checks and balances to prevent one branch of its government from becoming too strong, it also create a strong government that we need. Our nation needs a strong government to survive and without a strong national government our nation will perish. A strong government shows that it can face the tasks, such as trade, currency, and defense, all things that deal with the entire nation. The Constitution also states that we will have not only one national government, but a state and county/town government. With this each state will have its own independence, but still be apart of our country. This is why we need a Constitution.
The Constitution is a brilliant consept because it will make the central government stronger with three branches to evenly split the powers, it will be organized by the system of checks and balances, and the national government will be able to secure the rights of the people, this is what I Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, believe we as a nation need. The ‘three branches of government’ idea introduced by Montesquieu, will make the powers in the central government ultimately more limited, which is what the Anti- Federalists want. The system of checks and balances is a strong system that will ensure that one of the three branches don’t get to strong, if they end up abusing their limited powers. Rights of the people will stay at a top priority of the government, and they will ensure that the rights of the people in America are completely safe from any harm, a stronger central government will make sure of the. Clearly, ratifying the Constitution will be a better for our country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLydia Seaman
Period 1
“My name is Alexander Hamilton, I am a Federalist, and I believe the national government works extremely well at protecting people’s rights. The system of checks and balances helps to stop tyranny from arising. The national Government is separated into three branches, making sure that none of them can overthrow the others. This is a way of trying to make sure everyone feels safe with a strong National Government. The Constitution does not give the executive branch too much power, despite what you may hear. Since the National Government is divided into three sections, the executive branch has limitations on its powers. The Anti-Federalists believe that a stronger National Government would have the power to raise taxes and eventually overthrow the state Government. This nation needs a strong national government to take on certain tasks like trade, currency, and defense. It also protects the state Government and stops it from being terminated. We would never want to end the state government, it’s very valuable. The Anti-Federalists also believe that our government would be placed too far from people’s communities, so they could not participate, and the government would eventually become a tyranny. This is simply just not true; because of our limitations placed on it by our system of checks and balances.
ReplyDelete-conor
Period 2
I believe that the Constitution should be ratified in the colonies for many reasons. First, the powers of the government are limited in things that face all of the colonies like trade, currency, and defense which means they don’t have enough power to be a tyranny. Next, the government will never be able to become a tyranny with the checks and balances and the separation of powers set in place with the Constitution. Also, if a bill of rights is made, many citizens will think that only those rights are protected under it but without it they will know that all of their rights are protected. Finally, the power that it gives to the executive branch is necessary so that the national government will be able to fulfill its responsibilities. The executive branch will not take all the power because congress can check in on the executive branch to make sure they don’t have too much power. That is why our country should ratify the Constitution.
ReplyDelete-George Washington, Jack M pd.2
My name is John Jay. As I Federalist, I support the Constitution and want it ratified. I also believe the bill of rights shouldn’t be included in the Constitution. We should leave the Constitution as it is. I think we should leave it alone because its fine how it is. You may think as an Anti-Federalist that the government may have too much power, but they won’t. They will be able to use their power for trade and defense. If we take away their power, we will be a weaker nation. Also we should ratify the government because it won’t turn into a dictatorship with set system of checks and balances. From the past history we learned that we need a stronger government. With a stronger government, we can get much more accomplished, like creating treaties with other countries. We don’t want to limit the government to not be able to make choices. If they made choices for our country, it would be very beneficial to the growth of building our nation.
ReplyDeleteJohn Jay Brendan S Pd 2
Alex
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington
p.2
Federalist
As a Federalist, I think that we should ratify US Constitution as it is because a bill of rights would be unnecessary. One great reason why the US Constitution is better than the Articles of Confederation is because it protects people’s rights. The US Constitution would clearly not become a tyranny because of the checks and balances which would make sure no one had too much power if we ratify it. Experience has shown that a strong national government is needed and this would not happen under the Articles of Confederation! For those who think that the US Constitution gives the national government too much power, they are clearly wrong because we distribute that power to other branches so one branch does not have too much.
Jack Pd2, Gouverneur Morris, As a Federalist I feel that we should not include the bill of rights with the Constitution because it is a better, more affluent government that the people can rely on. One reason why I feel the Constitution is better for our nation is because it was made for the people and it would protect their rights. Many of you anti-Federalists are thinking that the Constitution will turn into a tyranny because we are giving too much power to the government, but to solve this we will have a system of checks and balances to keep one government from getting too powerful. Also the national government would have limited power to tasks such as trade, currency, and defense so that they wouldn’t get too powerful. The accusations of the Executive branch being too powerful are not true. One reason why is because the checks and balance system makes sure that no one branch gets too powerful. Another reason is because we need a powerful government to fulfill its national responsibilities, plus the Executive branches power is divided between two other branches so that no one branch dominates the rest.
ReplyDeleteFederalist James Madison
ReplyDeleteMark Per 2
As a Federalist, I James Madison, believe that the Constitution effectively protects the rights of the people. We need a bill of rights because the system of checks and balances would make sure the government doesn’t get too much power. We need to make sure we address these issues so people can be equal. The government would be great at protecting the rights of the people that there is no point of the bill of rights. It is not necessary because they are natural rights. We don’t need a list because the government can’t take our rights away so, what’s the point? The government needs more power to run this country. Then we will have an equal and organized government that will help us through tough times with anything.
Michael
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
James Madison
As a Federalist, I James Madison, believe that the Constitution effectively protects the rights of the people. By building three branches of government it doesn’t make one person in charge it makes other people in charge too. So, since they make three branches they can split the power. The Constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch so it cannot become a monarchy. We do not need the bill of rights because the powers of the government are limited to the Constitution.
I, George Washington, the former Commander of the Continental Army, am a Federalist and I believe that a bill of rights is not necessary because the Constitution effectively protects the rights of the people. I believe that a bill of rights is not needed because the government’s powers are already limited. A bill of rights would give people an impression that people can only expect protection of those rights that are listed. Everybody has natural rights that they are born with; we don’t control the rights they have. We elect presidents because we believe he is the right person to run our country, we should give him and the executive branch the power necessary to run the country they were elected to run. I strongly agree with a 3 branches of government who run by a system of checks and balances, but the executive branch will be the strongest. The executive branch is not a threat to become to powerful because of our system of checks and balances. We should ratify the constitution the way it is; there is no need for a bill of rights.
ReplyDelete-Stephen
p.4
Julia/Alexander Hamilton/ period 4
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton a Federalist, strongly believe we should ratify the Constitution without the bill of rights. The bills of rights are not necessary if we just have the Constitution. We do not need the bill of rights because they are unnecessary because the limited powers of the government. We need a strong national government to protect the rights of the people. This would not become a tyranny because of the system of checks and balances. The powers if the national government each are divided equally so no branch would be more powerful that others. Lastly, throughout history all of the small republics have been destroyed due to selfish groups. We need a large republic so that the power would be divided between national and state governments. I truly believe we should ratify the Constitution and we do not need the bill of rights.
Matt Period 4
ReplyDeleteI, John Jay, say that I support our Constitution. National government will agree to get along with us Federalists much better if we all agree on ratifying the Constitution. Our loyalty and support would be protected if this agreement was made, it would be a very positive relationship. Proper limitations would be set on this system and cause everyone to not go over the top with greed using this power. The limitations would help keep the laws on the systems of checks and balances and separation of powers. Ratifying this Constitution would be great in so many positive ways and help our country not have loads of greed and selfishness. Proper general welfare clauses would be obtained if we all agree to ratify this Constitution and obey it. All Americans are afraid of a repeat of the terrible dictatorship that Britain plagued us with. As a result we do not want the National government to misuse this power in somewhat of a way Britain used it. This, my people was then but for our future, The National government will be different and nothing like our enemies in Britain. Ratifying this Constitution will bring a new wave of hope to America and cause our country to be under better protection from any invaders. Once again, their power will be limited and we will be safe from any power struggles. Please America, help us create a new hope for our country and help ratify the Constitution for our future.
Lucas period 4
ReplyDeleteGouverneur Morris says…
As a Federalist, I believe that the Constitution should be ratified as quickly as possible. I don’t feel that a bill of rights is necessary in the Constitution. I feel this way because a strong government doesn’t happen over night, and in order to achieve a strong government, we must give them power and our trust. I realize that giving a lot of power to a single group of people can be nerve racking, but if we make a good system of checks and balances, no single being or group could have too much power. Having a bill of rights is unnecessary due to the fact that the constitution already protects the people’s rights as it is. With the power split up between three branches of government everybody’s rights will be protected and we won’t have to be worried about a superior ruler usurping power. We would be the people who voted for this leader, so if we thought the person had bad intentions he wouldn’t be voted into office. As I stated earlier the Constitution needs to be ratified just the way it is.
Robert
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I, Alexander Hamilton, as a Federalist, truly believe that the bill of rights is unnecessary for the Constitution. It should be ratified as it is. The national government would be good at protecting the rights of the people already, so what will the bill of rights make better? Also, the government would not become a tyranny because of our system of checks and balances and separation of powers. Therefore we will not have to worry about the problems we had during the Articles of Confederation. You Anti- Federalists might think that the Constitution gives the executive branch too much power. But the powers of each branch are separated and balanced as the Supreme Court can check the executive branch’s power. That being said, no one branch can dominate another, so the bill of rights is unnecessary. Finally, I, Alexander Hamilton, believe the Constitution is fine as it is, and we especially don’t need the bill of rights to insure against a potential power struggle.
Alexander Hamilton/ Alec
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton am a Federalist, and the Constitution effectively protects the rights of the people of The United States of America. The national government would be so good at protecting the rights of the people that the government would soon gain the people’s loyalty and support. The government could not become a tyranny because of the limits placed on it by the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. History has proven that all of the small republics of the past had been destroyed by selfish groups. The national government is limited to tasks that include the entire nation such as topics of trade, currency, and defense. A bill of rights is unnecessary because the people of the country will gain trust of the government to protect them. The necessary and proper welfare clauses are appropriate if the national government if it is doing the things it is responsible for. The constitution should definitely be ratified to make the country a better place.
I, John Jay, am a Federalist, and I believe the Constitution should be ratified as it is. Our country needs a strong and well-working central government. The Constitution says that the government will have checks and balances. Checks and balances will give any of the three branches of government the power to check the other two branches power. It also has separation of powers. Separation of powers will evenly spread out the power between the three branches, legislative, judicial, and executive. Clearly, these principals of the Constitution allow us to have a unified and organized central government.
ReplyDelete~Ellie Pd 4 :)
Chris period 4
ReplyDeleteArgument
I, George Washington, believe we do not need the bill of rights and that we should keep the Constitution the way it is. The bill of rights is not necessary because the Constitution effectively protected the rights of the People! The Necessary and Proper and General Welfare clauses are necessary if the national government is to do the things it is responsible for doing because then we won’t have to worry about the problems we had during the Articles of Confederation, It is fine because it allows the national government fix whatever they need to fix and the separation of powers makes sure they don’t abuse their power. A strong executive branch is necessary for the national government to be able to fulfill its responsibilities because executive branch is important to everybody. The powers of the national government are separated and balanced among the three branches so no one branch can dominate the others. I, George Washington, a Federalist, therefore conclude that we do not need bill of rights.
As John Jay, an average Federalist, I stand that the Constitution should be ratified, for the total better of the states. It unifies the states with a strong center, so that the federal government has enough power to deal with important issues for the whole nation, such as trade, currency, and defense of the whole nation. Without a strong central government, each state is left to fend and fight for themselves, especially under the articles of confederation. If a state of our nation is attacked, then if the government is not strong enough to have control of an army, then the state has to fight for itself, the equivalent of thirteen separate countries. The fact that the government will use the power it is given more than compensates that the government will have power. The common belief spread by the Anti-Federalists is that a strong executive branch leads to a monarch. This is a common assumption. We as a new nation need a strong leader for the government to be able to fulfill its responsibilities. Yet, from the operation of checks and balances detailed in the Constitution, no branch can have more power than another. This is one of the many misunderstood parts of the Constitution. No branch can get too powerful, thus power to each branch can neither turn our government to a tyranny or monarchy. My last opinion is that a bill of rights is not needed. The rights of the people are already protected by the limitation of the government powers. It would be like having to cook food, then wait for it to cool down, then cook it again.
ReplyDeleteMac Reddy Pd. 6
Being Alexander Hamilton, I strongly support the Federalist cause of ratifying the constitution. This document will insure we have a stronger government to better protect the rights of the people. Despite the arguments of the Anti-Federalists, a stronger central government is absolutely necessary to deal with problems on a national scale, such as currency, trade and defense. The Articles of Confederation were flawed in the respect that they gave slim to no power to government for problem-solving purposes; the constitution would not have this flaw while still obeying the rights of the people. Additionally, a system of checks and balances has been put into place which will allow the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to check each other’s use of power and make sure they are not abusing it. Through these precautions introduced by our constitution, the citizens’ loyalty will soon be gained. As we have learned from our pasts, a government trusted by the people is absolutely necessary for the building of a successful nation.
ReplyDelete-Jack Kessler pd 2
As a Federalist, I George Washington strongly believe in the ratification of the Constitution. We need a strong central government to succeed; otherwise the government will fail as it did in the past. The states have to cooperate and work together to get things done. Yes, the national government will have more power, but there different branches of government and are checks and balances put in place so that the government does not get tyrannical. The different branches of government can make sure the others don’t abuse their power and they will correct their mistakes. If there is a bill of rights in the Constitution it will limit our rights. Any right that we do not list will be taken away from us.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Pd.6
Ladies and gentlemen, I am James Madison. We want a better government and a safer/happier lifestyle, am I right? Well, history has clearly proven that all of the small republics of the past had been destroyed by selfish groups. A big republic where the government was organized on the basis of checks and balances, and power was divided between the national and the state governments, would be better than what we have now. Under this government, it would be more difficult for special interests to attain their goals and violate the common welfare. The national government would be good at protecting the rights of the people that it would soon gain their loyalty and support which is good, because then each and every one of us would have trusting loyalty and support from someone with a higher power. Ratifying the Constitution would help us against Britain because, we would have a more powerful government and they could lead us forward. In all, the Constitution should definitely be ratified; it would help us be more successful in so many ways. We would have a government that is under control, the people would be under control, and since all that is happening everyone can be happy and we would finally have the chance to take over Britain with such a sustained government. BECOME A FEDERALIST, AND VOTE TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION!
ReplyDeleteNora Moriarty Pd.6
James Madison
Federalist
Mate Landeka
ReplyDeletePer.6
2/2/10
John Jay: Federalist
Hello, wonderful people of this beautiful land I like to call America. I am John Jay, a Federalist, and I want the Constitution ratified. If we want America to be a success, we need to have the Constitution ratified for several different reasons. History has not only shown, but has proven that small republics of the past had been destroyed by selfish groups, but with a stronger national government history would not be repeated. Another reason I believe so strongly in ratifying the Constitution is because the Constitution would allow the Congress and the Supreme Court to check the use of the power of the national government so it does not turn into a monarchy. The national government would be more powerful then it was under the Articles of Confederation, but under the Constitution, their power would be limited to tasks such as trade, currency, and defense. Their powers are limited because the Constitution provides protection for the state governments through federalism so that the national government doesn’t destroy them. I strongly believe that the only way America will be a success, is if the Constitution is ratified.
Caitlin S.
ReplyDelete2/23/10
Pd. 6
I, John Jay, am a Federalist. As a Federalist, I think that the Constitution is fine the way it is. If we had a national government it would be much better at protecting our rights. We do not need a bill of rights in the Constitution because the government’s power is limited by checks and balances and separation of powers. It would show that the citizens would only receive protection of the rights that were listed. We don’t want to have or make people think we have a weak and demanding government. In conclusion, the bill of rights is completely unnecessary and would not help us in any way.
Brittany C.
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
Federalist James Madison
My name is James Madison, and I believe that we should ratify the Constitution. My argument is that we need a strong national government to face problems in our nation. The Constitution should be ratified because we have a strong government; each branch of government has checks and balances, and the necessary and proper clauses. The Anti-Federalists believe that the national government has too much power. The national government has more power under the Constitution than it did under the Articles of Confederation. Though, the national government has limited powers on the things that face America, such as currency, trade and defense. We need a strong national government to face these problems. The Constitution also has checks and balances on branches of government making sure the government doesn’t get too powerful. The government cannot become tyranny because of the checks and balances. The Constitution also has the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses that are necessary if the national government is to do the things it is responsible for doing. Under the Constitution the government will be strong, have checks and balances to not become a tyranny, and have the necessary and proper clauses.
I, George Washington, am a Federalist and as a Federalist and I feel that the Constitution should be ratified. The Constitution is great the way it is and doesn’t need a bill of rights because the government has limited power. If we had a bill of rights, the people’s expectation of the government would just be to protect the listed rights and nothing more .If the people only had those expectations of the government then people would be making their own laws and that would end in disaster. We also don’t need a bill of rights because the government can’t get to powerful because of the system of checks and balances that are stated in the Constitution. Even if a part of the government gets too powerful, the other to branches can do something about it and make it better. We need to ratify this Constitution soon or we are all going to be doomed to repeat history.
ReplyDeleteMatt Lat. Pd.9
Federalist
ReplyDeleteChris D.
My name is George Washington and I am a Federalist. I am a Federalist since I am for the Constitution and I agree with it. The most important reason (out of many) is that there needs to be a strong executive branch in the government, so it will be able to fulfill all of its duties that it is responsible for. Also, the national government’s power will be spread out and shared equally, so no one branch will have more power than the next. Many Anti-Federalists say that a bill of rights will be necessary to make sure that the people will be protected against the national government, but that is not true. The government only has limited powers, so the use of a bill of rights is not going to be required. A bill of rights would make the people think that they would only get protection of the rights that would be listed on the bill. Also, the last reason I feel this way is that the government would become popular among the people, since they would do such a good job under their terms. It also wouldn’t fail, since it is tyranny-proof, since there are limitations on it under the system of separation of powers and checks-and-balances. That is why I am a Federalist.
Matt
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
George Washington
Federalist
My name is George Washington and I am a federalist who believes the Constitution should be ratified. I think a strong executive branch is necessary for the national government because the powers of the national government are separated and balanced among the three branches so no one can dominate the others. I also believe that the national government would be good at protecting the rights of the people that it would soon gain their loyalty and support. This would not lead to tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and separation of power. I think a bill of rights is pointless because the powers of the government are limited. This would give an impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. This is why I believe the constitution should be ratified.
"I, John Jay (Kristen, Period 9) believe that the Constitution should be ratified and that a bill of rights is not needed to be added to the Constitution. The Constitution should be ratified because it has a perfectly balanced national government, it has separation of powers within the government, each branch of government has checks and balances on each other, and the necessary and proper clauses. The Constitution has given the national government more power than the Articles of Confederation did. In the Articles of Confederation the national government was to weak and couldn’t enforce any laws, with the national government in the Constitution it has power to make and enforce laws thus giving it a good balance in between too strong and too weak of a government. The separation of powers in our government makes sure that no part of government gets to much power. Also, the separation of powers does the same. These two components of the Constitution are important to our success because they give the powers to separate places and allow each part of the government to have something to fight back with against the other. The Constitution also has the necessary and proper clauses because they are needed if the government is going to do what a government is responsible for doing. These clauses allow the government to do what they need to do. Although, they don’t allow the government to do whatever they want as long as they think it is proper. This can’t be allowed because the government is limited and the other branches can stop them from declaring something that no one agrees with. If the other branches can’t do so then they can have the power to have the people taken out of power. To summarize, the government under the Constitution has the perfect balance of power between it and the people being governed, and all necessary components are in the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteFederalist
ReplyDeleteArgument:
I, James Madison, am a Federalist because I believe the Constitution should be ratified, giving the people to create a government. We need a stronger government that puts aside the selfishness that had destroyed small republics. If the government was based on checks and balances the power would be distributed between the state government and the national government. Yes, the new nation is big, but with the checks and balances system it would become easier to fulfill the common welfare. Since the government is based on the system of checks and balances it would prevent from one government dominating or gaining too much power. Also the Constitution protects the state government and therefore it will not allow the fall of the national government.
- Brittany Bryant
Period 9
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePower is what all countries are based off of and is key to how they function. In all successful countries you will notice that they all share common virtues, such as a leader, and some form of government. As a Federalist, I must say that a leader of some kind is required but after what the United States has been through we are conscious of the fact that too much power leads to rebellion. If we want this land to be free we cannot have endless power and cruelty. Each person should be knowledgeable of the fact that they are born with a special privilege, known as our natural rights. Our government should be able to protect every aspect of these rights and allow us all to obtain liberty, which is exactly why we have the Constitution. Keeping our past in mind, I believe that we can thrive to become one of the world’s strongest countries as long as we research well and develop a full understanding of all governments. Being a Federalist, I have a clear view of how our government is going to be in the future. My name is James Madison and I have been trying to ratify the Constitution and currently have a plan as to what we will do. The Constitution is made to protect the rights of everyone and will serve justice for all people; ergo I believe that we should go directly to the people, requesting them to sign it to prove that we can all come together under one equal government. If nine out of thirteen states sign the document we can begin creating our stable government. There are no reasons as to why we need a bill of rights, other than to make certain people comfortable and less scared of the powers of the Constitution. It is completely pointless to add a bill, because it would just be caving in and admitting that we are not fair to our people, which everyone knows is not the case. I think that we should remain strong and keep the beautifully written document as it is. Having more power is not something we should fear, but embrace, because we would like to be able to live freely without care and we can only establish that if some people step up and take charge of more important things and accept the responsibility. Of course these people will not under any circumstances be able to abuse this power, considering how there are checks and balances and three equal branches. Being aware of all the facts I strongly believe that the Constitution is perfect just the way it is, and that it covers all basic and extreme ideas, or rights including life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With all of these vital parts put into the Constitution, it is as stable and complete as it will ever be and does not require any sort bill to make ensure further justice.
-Katie Period 9-
Ellie 9
ReplyDeleteFederalist
I, George Washington, a Federalist believe that the ratification of the Constitution is necessary and will not take away the rights of the people. In order to keep the governments at a level where the power is fair, it will be organized on the basis of checks and balances. The power will be divided up between national and state governments. If this is done it will prevent the government from getting too much power. The rights of the people will be protected, and the government will not become a tyranny because of the limitations of the system, because of the separations of the powers. This is possible because the national government does not have all the power it has limitations to what they can and can’t do. The rest of the power is to the state governments. The national government will have more power but their powers are limited that face the entire nation. The national government is limited from trade, currency, and defense although with a stronger national government these problems can be solved. No branch of government will over power one another because the powers are balanced between the three, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The reason why the branches of government will not get to powerful is because they are going by the system of check and balances. A bill of rights will not be necessary because the rights of the people will be protected, if we do this our government will be improved.
Jack
ReplyDeletePer.9
Federalist: Alexander Hamilton
I am Alexander Hamilton and I am a Federalist. We should ratify the Constitution. We should ratify the Constitution because it makes sure the government doesn’t become a monarchy. We need the Constitution because it limits the government on what they can and can’t do. We need the Constitution because it would protect our rights and it would make the government be stable and not too powerful. The Constitution does not need the Bill of Rights. The Constitution establishes that there will be a local, states and national government. We would have three different types of government so that nothing gets out of control and so the law gets enforced. We can not just list all of our rights, but we need a document that states what the government can and can’t do and what the people can and can’t do. Also, we need the Constitution to tell the government what we need and what our rights are too.
Matt Lazz Period: 9
ReplyDeleteMy name is James Madison and I am a Federalist. The US Constitution should be ratified because it will give the people the power that they need. This will also prevent the government from being a tyranny. It will also not become a tyranny because of the system of checks and balances and there are three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, that will make sure that each branch will not abuse their power. The Bill of Rights gives the government little power, which means that the state government can abuse their power without being stopped. The Constitution protects the rights of the people. The government needs power to certain tasks that face the entire nation including trade, currency, and defense. If they don’t have these powers the government would be inefficient and unorganized. In conclusion, it is extremely necessary for the Constitution to be ratified.
Anna-9, rebuttal to James Madison
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are three branches that split up the power, that won’t stop the government from becoming a monarchy. The executive branch is given too much power and can easily slide us into a country of tyranny. Also, expecting us to trust the people running the government instantaneously is asking too much. We have gone through too much to gain our freedom to be expected to give away our trust easily. A bill of rights must be present in the system of government so we can have protection for them. You say that the government “... would be great at protecting the rights of the people…there is no point of the bill of rights.” We simply cannot base our country’s structure on an assumption that our congress will be unselfish and never get power hungry. That is an especially big mistake because we are not only placing our faith in the congress that will be in office now, but for hundreds of years to come.
As George Washington, a Federalist, I believe that we should ratify the Constitution. I think that there should be a Constitution because the national government can protect people’s rights, it can be organized by a system of checks and balances, and by splitting the government into three branches so no one can have too much power over someone else. The government would have the peoples trust because they would be gaining their loyalty, and support. Also, the government had many obstacles, so it could not become a tyranny. A system of checks and balances would make it much harder to contravene or violate the law. Also, the power was divided between the National and State government. Lastly, it cannot become a monarchy because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court and the Congress ways to check the power by the executive branch. A greatly strong government would be able to seal with these problems and topics.
ReplyDeleteMatt; Period 1
I, James Madison am a federalist. I want to get the constitution ratified. We need a strong central government to fulfill our country’s responsibilities. The powers of the national government would be separated into three branches, which would balance out the power. No one branch would take over the other. The constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the power usage of the executive branch, so it will not become a monarchy. We don’t need a bill of rights because the powers of the government are limited. The national government would never become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. Yes, it is correct that the national government has more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation, but its powers are limited to tasks that have to do with the entire nation, such as trade, and defense. In conclusion, it is clear that we, as Americans, should ratify the constitution.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Pd.1
I John Jay a Federalist feel that we should accept our Constitution. A bill of right will only protect specific human rights. Americans would be mistaken to think that all of their citizens rights would protected for the future. We should ratify the Constitution because we as a nation need a powerful central government! With these three branches executive, legislative, and judicial we would be able to create a more democratic government. This government would help protect our country and each individual state, by having enough power to defend our country but not take over. The checks and balances of shared and limited power, one part of the government can cooperate with the other branches of the government. Also for our general welfare a president would be able to improve basic living though out the country and improve the trade and economy.
ReplyDeletePeter period 2
My name is James Madison and I am a Federalist. The Constitution should be ratified without the bill of rights! National government should be responsible for the entire nation with trade currency and defense. So it won’t over power state governments. The democratic government system of checks and balances make sure that no government branch gets too much power. With a bill of rights the government wouldn’t have enough power and with out it there wouldn’t become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it with the system of checks and balances. Without the bill of rights the state governments would still have a lot of power the federal government will just have more power over. If we ratify the Constitution, the government will not have as much power, and they will not be able to do as many things. Such as trade, currency and other business agreements. Having three branches of government is a wise choice that greatly improves upon the system established by the Articles of Confederation.
ReplyDelete-James Madison/ Matt period 2
Julianna Period 4
ReplyDeleteI am George Washington, and I am a federalist. I am a federalist because I strongly believe that the constitution should be ratified. The constitution states everything that the people want, it is the set of rules that the people chose to live by. Another document would be useless because it would only be explaining the same thing as the constitution. The constitution is one of the most important documents within the United States, it was not something taken lightly. It also took a lot of time and hard work, such struggles for a new document that is not even necessary is ridiculous. A bill of rights is unnecessary and unneeded. We should not create a bill of rights, and we should ratify the constitution.
Nick
ReplyDeleteSocial Studies
Period 4
James Madison
Federalist
I believe that a constitution without a bill of rights is necessary because the powers of the government are limited with the rules listed. The Constitution is already perfect, in my and my fellow peer’s opinion. We would only have to list the rights of the people. A bill of rights would give the impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. Therefore, the Constitution is perfect without a bill of rights.
Federalist John Jay
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution should be ratified; I John Jay will tell you why. Well, first of all it does not include a bill of rights, but we do not need a bill of rights. The power of the government is now limited and the people expect most, if not all, of their rights to be protected by the government. This is because the purpose of government is to protect our natural rights. We can not list all of the rights to the people in one document. Also, if a right is not listed they well assume that it’s not a right at all. The US Constitution was made to protect the rights of the people; therefore a bill of rights is not necessary.
Hannah-Pd. 6
I, George Washington am a federalist whose goal it is to the constitution ratified. The reason I think this way is because a strong national government would be power full enough to be able to protect the rights of the people and they will love the way we treat so much they will show us loyalty and we will get support, from the people. Also it is impossible to become a tyranny because the limitations on the system such as checks and balances also including separation of powers. A strong national government is intimating but it is better to be able to deal with problems such as trade, currency, and defense. I also believe a bill of rights is unnecessary because the people will believe they only get the rights and the protection on the bill of rights but with the power of the government limited there is no need for the bill of rights. If this is not clear I don’t know what clear is, The united states of America should ratified this constitution.
ReplyDeleteThomas Anderson Pd 1
Andrew – 9
ReplyDelete2/23/10
Federalists
My name is George Washington and I am a Federalist. I am for the Constitution for multiply reasons. First the national government will gain more power, but will not become a tyranny. It would not become a tyranny because there are limitations to the government, which means that they can’t do whatever they like. Second it will protect our freedom, and powers. That can not be divided until the Constitution is ratified. The Constitution is establishes the right form of government and is a good document to follow.
Alexander Hamilton
ReplyDelete(Federalist)
For America to flourish for years and years to come we must establish a strong central government that does not rely too heavily on its main source of power but has the ability to make quick decisions when necessary. I, Alexander Hamilton firmly believe that by ratifying the Constitution in its current state we will accomplish this feat and put our country in a position for success. This government will consist of three main branches that will all be able to check the power of one another. The executive branch will play a large leadership role but will have just enough power to avoid another disaster like the Articles of Confederation and not enough power to become tyrannical. There is absolutely no need for a bill of rights which would only seem to limit the citizens rights and give the government the jurisdiction to only enforce certain rights and regulations. Once this government is put into action it will immediately gain the trust and support of each and every American citizen and propel our country in the right direction. - Matt Smoot Period 6
Julia period 1
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington believe that we should ratify the Constitution. The citizens of the USA know the rights that everyone has, and they are all equal. All branches have equal power too. There are a series of checks and balances that can they make sure that the Executive branch does not get too much power. If the Executive branch does get too much power we still have the power to impeach the president and the vice president takes office. I don’t believe that we need to have a bill of rights and that we should just ratify the constitution.
Thomas Anderson Pd 1
ReplyDeleteI George Washington am a federalist. That means I am for the constitution. The reason I am for the constitution is because with a strong national government it would be so good at protecting peoples rights the people would become loyal to us and we would gain their support. This also could not become a tyranny because with the separations of powers and also with the checks and balances it would be impossible. Also a bill of rights is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited. But also with a bill of rights the people may think that they are only protected under those rights no more than those rights. This is why I believe we should ratify the constitution.
Thomas Anderson Pd 1
ReplyDeleteI George Washington am a federalist. That means I am for the constitution. The reason I am for the constitution is because with a strong national government it would be so good at protecting peoples rights the people would become loyal to us and we would gain their support. This also could not become a tyranny because with the separations of powers and also with the checks and balances it would be impossible. Also a bill of rights is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited. But also with a bill of rights the people may think that they are only protected under those rights no more than those rights. This is why I believe we should ratify the constitution.
I George Washington am a federalist.I believe that a bill of rights is not needed because the government’s powers are already limited. A bill of rights would give people an impression that people can only expect protection of those rights that are listed. Also I am all for the Constitution. The constitution states a set of rules that the people chose to live by. I think a strong executive branch is necessary for the national government because the powers of the national government are separated and balanced among the three branches so no one can dominate the others. Also a strong executive branch is necessary for the national government, so it is able to fulfill all of its duties that it is responsible for. Next the constitution gives the congress and the supreme court right to check the use of power by the executive branch so it cannot become a monarchy. Lastly the national government would be great at protecting the rights of the people that it would gain their loyalty and support. So it could not become a tyranny, the system of checks and balances and seperations of powers would put limitations on it.
ReplyDeleteCarly Friedman
period 1
My name is John Jay, and as a Federalist, I strongly believe that the Constitution is more then effective the way it’s drafted. It does give the national government more power than it currently possesses, however a stronger central government is needed to deal with national matters such as trade, currency, and military. Many fear that a strong national government will result in a tyranny, but the Constitution suggests that the government be separated into three branches, each with checks and balances that prevent each part from becoming to powerful. For example, the president has the power to veto a law, but the Congress can overrule the president if two-thirds of the Congress agrees to pass the bill. Also, there are still strong state governments that preside over statewide matters, and these governments are strongly protected so that the federal government can’t destroy them. Our Constitution doesn’t need a bill of rights to be added because the Constitution already states the many rights of the people in the preamble, and the entire government is specifically created to protect these rights. To make a bill of rights would imply that the government should only protect the certain rights listed, and that the people should only expect those certain rights. This draft of the Constitution promises a stable, democratic republic that would continue to protect people’s blessings of liberty in centuries to come. ~Sarah pd. 6
ReplyDeleteJames Madison says:
ReplyDeleteAs a Federalist, I believe that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution and it should be ratified exactly as it is. It is true that there is more power in the hands of the government with the Constitution than there was with the Articles of Confederation, but the Articles of Confederation failed because there wasn’t enough power. This caused each state to be like its own independent country and the government had no power over what they did. The Constitution give the government limitations on what power they have and the Congress and Supreme Court make sure that one person or branch doesn’t get to much power, causing a tyranny. The Constitution provides a strong central government, but it is not overpowering and we are not in danger of becoming a monarchy. The government is given power to protect the natural rights of the people and make sure that they aren’t taken away or violated. There is no way that the Constitution could cause the government to become a monarchy. Therefore, the bill of rights isn’t needed because the Constitution states the rights of the government which tells them what they can and can’t do when affecting the people. All in all, the Constitution is fulfilling the needs of power of the government, without giving them too much, and the Constitution should be ratified exactly as it is.
- Julia, period 2
As James Madison, a Federalist, I think that we should not include a bill of rights from the Constitution. I think that if we were to include a bill of rights, the power would be distributed unevenly and it would be unfair for some levels of government. Anti-Federalists stated that the Constitution gives the national government too much power at the expense of the state governments. This really means the national government only gets some power, but this power helps the Constitution stay organized, using checks and balances. These powers that the national government has, helps us face the major problems such as currency, trade, and defense. The constitution isn’t a document that states people’s rights, it just limits the powers. This is a step better than the Articles of Confederation, because every state consists in the congress, instead of competing for power between the states. It shows who should have the power, and prevents the government from becoming a monarch. I strongly believe that the Federalists were right, the bill of rights should not be considered in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteby Aaron Wenta pd. 2
Danny
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
James Madison
I, James Madison believe that the Constitution should be ratified as soon as possible. Our system of government could not become like a monarchy or a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it such as separation of power, and the system of checks and balances. Many think that the Constitution gives too much power to the national government while totally disregarding the state government. Even though it is true that the national government will have more power than it was given from the Articles of Confederation, their powers limited. They can only deal with problems that face the entire nation like trade, currency, and defense. Also, the Constitution will give protection for the state governments to prevent them from being destroyed by the national government. Also, some think that the Constitution needs a bill of rights, which is needed for protecting the individuals against the national government’s power. This is completely unneeded because the government’s powers are limited. Lastly, the people would think their rights couldn’t actually be protected if the bill of rights was made, and that their rights listed in the Constitution wouldn’t actually exist.
Scott Period 9
ReplyDeleteUS Constitution
Federalist Gouverneur Morris
I, Gouverneur Morris, believe that the Constitution should be ratified. The Constitution gives the democratic government a good amount of power, but not enough to make it into a tyrannical monarchy. We have made sure this won’t happen by dividing the government into three branches, which are legislative, executive, and judicial. With a system of checks and balances, our national government will be stronger. Say no to the bill of rights because it wont’ give the government the power it needs. The Constitution will protect the people’s rights, so they can be sure that their state government will not be overpowered by the national government. Due to the reasons previously stated, the Constitution should be ratified as soon as possible.
They want to ratify the constitution because they feel all the rights of the people are protected. I believe that the constitution should not be ratified because they are wrong about the local power I think that the leader should have power. I few had local power it would make everyone try to have all the power. There is no point of having it because everyone has rights. It would be good because the national government would be so good at protecting people that it would soon gain their loyalty and support. The national government would also have more power under the Articles of Confederation. The constitution provides adequate protections for the state governments to prevent their being destroyed by the national government. The necessary and proper welfare are necessary if the national government does, isn’t responsible for doing it.
ReplyDeleteBradley Norris
Period 2