Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Anti- Federalists: George Clinton, George Mason, Melanchthon Smith, Elbridge Gerry
Powerful organized opposition to the Constitution had developed and these men spoke out against ratification, objected that a bill of rights had not been included, that the President had too much independence, and the Senate was too aristocratic. They also thought Congress had too many powers and the national government had too much authority
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCaitlyn Tierney, Period #2
ReplyDeleteMy name is Melanchthon Smith, and I am an Anti-Federalist. I believe that the Constitution should be changed for many reasons. Firstly, I know the President will become a dictator if he gains too much power. After the issues we Americans had with the kings of England, we simply cannot be faced with another tyrant-like leader, even if he is called a president and not a king. Another reason we should alter the Constitution is the too-powerful Congress. America should be led by the people: having a Congress as controlling as this one can only lead to trouble and future rebellions. Congress has a possibility of taking over and becoming a dictatorship, and we really can’t afford that much corruption in our new country. The final reason we should modify the Constitution is its lack of a bill of rights. To have a safe, fair country, our people absolutely must be supported by a bill of rights because then the government will have limits on how fully they can control the people, and the people will be safer. Overall, my opinion is that the Constitution must not be ratified as it is.
Brendan Pd.2 George Clinton
ReplyDelete“I, George Clinton, an Anti-Federalist, believe that the Constitution needs more revision. Without a specific bill of rights, the federal government can easily compromise the rights of the people because they aren’t written down. A bill of rights is a key insurance and convenience, an easy document the people can look at in order to protect their rights of life, liberty and property against the national government. Although the Federalists state that this is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited in the Constitution, it is easier to twist the words of their document without a bill of rights with specific examples to back up the original Constitution. As multiple civilizations in the past have proven, it is completely necessary to take every security matter to protect the rights of the people, or else even well intentioned governments will eventually fail.”
As a strong supporter of the Revolution, I must object to this Constitution. Without a bill of rights saying exactly what the government can do and how it will protect the people, I fear for the worst of this Constitution. As said by Lord Acton, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The executive branch would soon turn into a monarchy, since the constitution has a too general clause about what the branch can do. The officials can take advantage of this and then they will have all the power. If we have corrupt officials in our government, it will just become the tyranny we ran from in England. The “president” will become another King George with the Revolutionary War starting again anew. -Melancton Smith, Anti Federalist (Edwin, Pd 2)
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith
ReplyDeleteAs an Anti-Federalist, it is my strong and firm belief that a bill of rights is a crucial addition to the Constitution- without it, our country will inevitably fall into a horrible monarchy or tyranny. The bill of rights eliminates any possible loop holes available to the government by completely clarifying the rights of each American, the rights that not even a government can override. For example, the bill of rights makes certain that the government is not allowed to take over completely. Also, it is unjust that the government should be given such high authority- the senate, for example, is an example of exaltation for wealth, something that we left England to escape! Without a doubt, a bill of rights should be desired by anyone who believes in the freedom and liberty of which America represents.
-Caroline period #4
Virginie Period 4
ReplyDelete“I believe that a bill of rights should be included in the Constitution before it is ratified. The national government is a lot stronger than it was before and only one person is the President, which is very similar to having a king, like in England. In England, they also had a bill of rights to protect them from that one leader and since we have one leader, too, we should have a bill of rights. I like the idea of split power and the system of checks and balances, but we should still be prepared in case the president or any other branch of the government finds a way to abuse their power without disobeying the Constitution. A bill of rights would be useful just to be prepared if a leader becomes tyrannical and people would feel safer knowing they are protected from any unfair people who govern the country.” –George Mason
Kelly prd.4/George Mason
ReplyDeleteAs an Anti-Federalist, I believe the Constitution would be great success but with a bill of rights. The draft of the Constitution that was read before me should not be ratified because there is not a bill of rights included. As I heard the Constitution being read, I thought that the executive branch of government reserved too much power. Too much power can lead to tyranny which means citizens of the new country could lose the rights we won and deserve. It is true that there needs to be a strong central government, but we can’t see the future. In the future, the executive branch could take advantage of their power similar to King George lll. King George lll ruled our country a little while ago. While he ruled, we were taxed unfairly without representation. We had no way of getting out of the taxation and unfair laws unless, as we did, declare war. Our country needs an outline of all rights of the people and the government so we have peace and can run our country as best as possible. It does not hurt to add a bill of rights; protection never hurts a country. Our new country needs protection and the bill of rights provides that. We don’t want another King George lll. Do you?
George Clinton
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Constitution should not be ratified the way it is because the Constitution gives the national government too much power because the Supremacy Clause states that the national government’s laws are superior to the laws made by the states. The fact that the national government has power to control an army and impose taxes upon the people makes me think they are going a little too far. The Constitution doesn’t even include a bill of rights for citizens to have protection against the power of the national government. The amount of power that the Constitution gives the executive branch has gone so far that this could lead to a level of monarchy. The ultimate result of the “over the top” government established by this Constitution will be absolute tyranny.
-Harry, pd. 6
Kelly Period #9
ReplyDeleteI, Patrick Henry Lee, as an Anti-Federalist believe that the Constitution should not be ratified. This democracy is too large to be affective and have all thirteen colonies cooperate. In the past the only democracies that have succeeded have been those within small communities. The nation is so large, with such diverse opinions, that the opinion of the general welfare would clash too much. Also, since the nation is so large, the government wouldn't be affective in enforcing the total participation, which in necessary in the success of a country. And, since this government would have so much power that it wouldn’t be able to look out for the common interest of every person in the nation. In the Constitution there is also no bill of rights which means the government could take away anything unspecified in the Constitution, especially since this document gives so much power to the government.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCaroline M Period 9
ReplyDeleteAnti-Federalist
Hello, I am George Mason and I believe that the Constitution created by the Federalists should not be ratified. The Constitution itself is too broad in the rights for American citizens, they should be specified in a bill of rights explaining what rights citizens have when facing government conflicts and charges. The national government has a large amount of power over the state governments, and they should be given that much power it should be distributed more equally than it would be. Thirdly, the Constitution allows the government to hold an army even when there is no war, meaning they could declare war and it might not be to the best interest of America. The Constitution does not state the fine points of what each government (state, federal, judicial, etc.) is entitled to. A Constitution is too broad to explain the government, liberty and freedom that America has.
Take a minute and think about why we sacrificed so much to make the difficult split from Great Britain. We risked the lives of our friends, our statuses, and the lives of ourselves and families so we can escape the harsh over-control of our home land. Now we are living free and struggling to find a sufficient government system, and we are considering a proposal that could very possibly retake away our rights?! This talk of ratifying the Constitution is unbearable! There are too many flaws with the system, we will very likely end up with a tyranny. We will find ourselves in the same dark pit we were in before we managed the split. Except this time, it would be more difficult to get out of because we will be fighting ourselves. With how much power the Constitution gives the executive branch, it is leading us down the path, spiraling towards an unruly monarchy. This new plan of government fails to give the American citizens a bill of rights. Such an important factor of the government needs to be present in order to establish and protect the rights of the people.
ReplyDelete~Patrick Henry Lee
(Anna 9)
Leia Period 9
ReplyDeleteAnti-Federalist
Patrick Henry Lee
I, Patrick Henry Lee, think that we should not ratify the Constitution. One of the reasons I think we should not ratify the Constitution because the government is going to have too much power and this will result in another King. When King George was in power the people had no freedom and I think that we don’t want this to happen again. I also think that we should have a bill of rights because if the government decides to take away all of our freedom, they can’t because the bill of rights clearly states that they can’t take away the rights and we need security to make sure there isn’t a monarchy. The final reason why we shouldn’t ratify the Constitution is because the national government will be located too far away to protect the rights of the people of the country. They won’t be able to handle things inside different states and there will be chaos. This is why I, Patrick Henry Lee, think that we should not ratify the Constitution.
Sarah
ReplyDeletePatrick Henry Lee
Pd. 9
Anti- Federalists
I, Patrick Henry Lee, am choosing to be an Anti- Federalist because I believe that the Constitution is not completely freeing our rights because a bill of rights has not been included. Firstly, we are such a large country that no one could agree on anything. We need to compromise for the common welfare, but we simply have too many people involved. What we need to do is break down the government, and have one government for each community in America. Another reason why I choose this side is because of the highly centralized government. It will be located in one place and people in communities farther away from the government can’t participate as much as people close to the government. Plus, the only way for the government to establish control over those farther away, is through the military force, resulting in a tyranny, which I am sure no one wants. Another reason I am an Anti-Federalist is because the Constitution is currently giving too much power to the executive branch. Within this problem, the free country we live in would become a monarch! Obviously, King George would not be a wise choice to rule our country again comrades. Remember the treatment he had thrust upon us. He made us miserable and that I think is reason enough to change the Constitution and include a bill of rights before we decide to ratify. Remember why we broke apart from him. Was our hard work really worth it if we are going to have a repeat of King George? Ask yourself this before you are pro- federalist. I, Patrick Henry Lee think this is why we should not ratify the Constitution.
Anti-Federalist, Patrick Henry Lee says: “I, as an Anti-Federalist, do not want to ratify the Constitution that Federalists have proposed. The Constitution is a bad idea to have for the government without a bill of rights. The Executive Branch of our government is already too powerful to begin with. We need a document to give equal power to the people and safety against this new government. Congress has too much power over the public affairs and spending of tax money without cause. The Federalists say that the system of checks and balances will keep no branch of government more powerful then any others but this does not pertain to the people of our country. These checks and balances don’t protect the people from the government. My Anti-Federalists and I agree that if the Constitution is to be approved then there needs to be a document protecting the citizens of these United States.”
ReplyDeleteMichael; period 1
I am George Mason, an Anti-Federalist. I oppose of the Constitution and I do not want it to be ratified. If the Constitution does become ratified, then our new government would have trouble maintaining the republican form of government. Other nations in the past have proven that all of the small republics have been destroyed because of some groups that want more power. If a republican form of government does succeed in a nation, then usually there is not much diversity between its people throughout the nation. America on the other hand, is an extremely large nation with much diversity between its citizens. For example in New England our people have to work hard in order to survive and have little money. In the south, our people own large plantations with hundreds of slaves on them and make a large profit by selling their goods into trade. Due to this issue then our people will not be able to agree on their common welfare.
ReplyDeleteBy,
Sarah M p.1
As Patrick Henry Lee, an Anti-Federalist, I argue that we defiantly should add a bill of rights to our Constitution and not ratify the Constitution in its current form. We should have our rights on a written document and by doing this it will limit the power of the government. We the people need to know our rights. Right Now! If the government does not know our rights, the government can override all of our ideas and become a monarchy. As said before, government will be limited to power. Saying that government will have to take care of the people and make treaties, make laws, and purpose tax laws. If they have to do both of these it will keep their mind off taking power and pay attention to us, the people. Proving we in defiantly should add a bill of rights to our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteEthan Frisch,
Period 1
Nick Carayannopoulos
ReplyDelete2/24/10
Pd. 2
My name is Patrick Henry. Recently our congress has written up the constitution of our government. I and a large group of people, dubbed the Anti-Federalists, do not approve of this constitution for three main reasons. First, the Constitution does not include a bill of rights, which is essential to a country’s constitution because the people need to know their rights. Next the Constitution gives the government too much power even if they can check each other. One branch might even take control, given enough time. Lastly the national government of a country must include the people. In this case the government will be located too far away from people’s communities for them to participate. That is why the constitution shouldn’t be ratified as of yet.
This is George Mason. We need to draft a bill of rights with the Constitution, because without one the government has no clear limitations and will abuse its power. We do not want another situation the one we just fought our way out of with an all powerful king. As well as having too much power, the government will soon become distant from the population of America. This will happen because the government is focused in a small area in America. State governments across the country will not be able to communicate with the main government very well because there are all so far apart. There will also not be active participation from the people because the federal government is so far away from their communities. And that is why we broke off from England! We separated so that we could have a society run by the people! You are hypocrites! This type of government could never work. Don’t sign the constitution!
ReplyDeleteKyyy period 4
I, George Clinton, believe that the Constitution should not be ratified without a bill of rights. This is because people’s rights would be more protected and there would also be a strong national government, but they would not abuse their power. The Constitution is too vague and would give the government more power than necessary. Also, the bill of rights would give the government more strict guidelines to what they are able to do with their power. Without a bill of rights the government would be located too far away from the people being governed, and their only way to rule the people would be with and army. This is just what King George III is doing. When he was in England he ruled the people with his military, which resulted in a tyranny. In addition, with the Constitution as it is, it hands over too much power to the national government but there should be limits to the government and they should distribute the power among multiple branches and many different people to make sure that it doesn’t result in a monarch. Without a bill of rights the people with power would have no clear limitations and they would abuse their power and there would be an equal fair government.
ReplyDelete~Gerorge Clinton
(Nicole Per. 4)
Charlotte: Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
The Constitution is very unspecific in saying what exactly the citizens are looking for in their country, so it should not be ratified as it is. Certainly a bill of rights can help protect the citizen’s rights. Without a bill of rights, the federal government can easily take advantage of the citizen’s natural rights. It is better to be more specific in the content of a bill of rights, because even if the national government’s powers are limited, they can nevertheless become tyrannical. It would benefit the citizens to be more specific of their privileges in a bill of rights. For instance, the Constitution talks about the General Welfare of the people, but a bill of rights could expand on what those ideas are.
In addition to my statement about the government taking advantage, the executive branch gets too much power and priority in the government. The executive branch can easily overthrow the government, and it would become a monarchy similar to what we had when we were under Britain’s rule. The whole point of the Constitution is to set up a fair government, and we can start by making equal distribution of power among the branches.
As an Anti-federalist, I, George Mason believe in a Constitution with a bill of rights…
ReplyDeleteOur Constitution should not be ratified in its current state because the federal government will overpower the state governments. As of rights now, the national government’s laws are superior to the state government’s laws. Thus, the federal government will take advantage of this and take over the state government. This would give the national government even more power and, as a result, taxation without representation. Our new nation needs a government that needs more checks, balances, and protections between these two levels of government. The deficient government that we have now, will collapse because of the assured dictatorship that will follow. Our Constitution is ambiguous and would be taken advantage of by the federal government. It is because of the vagueness that it can be broadly interpreted. So, the national government can extend its power over the state and do whatever they want. This also would be tyranny. This is exactly why the Constitution needs a bill of rights that spells out people’s rights, then, the national government would then have limited power. In conclusion, we cannot accept the Constitution, as it is now, with all these defects.
-Vikranth Pd.4
Austin Hatch Period 1: Anti-Federalist George Mason
ReplyDeleteI George Mason believe as the anti-federalist I am, that we should not approve the Constitution. I do not think the constitution will work because it has all of the aspects to lead to another tyranny and contest the freedom that our country was built around. The Constitution does not include a bill of rights, which I think we need to ensure our citizens some protection from the government. Also in the past republics haven’t been successful on a large scale, only in community based settings. If we try to jump into this government that the framers depict, it could be a giant risk unlike if we just have a strong democracy for the people. I also am fearing that this Constitution may give the executive branch too much power which could threaten our freedom hopeful country.
This is George Mason. We need to draft a bill of rights with the Constitution, because without one the government has no clear limitations and will abuse its power. We do not want another situation the one we just fought our way out of with an all powerful king. As well as having too much power, the government will soon become distant from the population of America. This will happen because the government is focused in a small area in America. State governments across the country will not be able to communicate with the main government very well because there are all so far apart. There will also not be active participation from the people because the federal government is so far away from their communities. And that is why we broke off from England! We separated so that we could have a society run by the people! You are hypocrites! This type of government could never work. Don’t sign the constitution!
ReplyDeleteKyle period 4
I am Patrick Henry Lee and I am an Anti Federalist and I believe that the bill of rights should be approved and mainly prevents a Tyranny. The bill of rights limits the power of the monarch, the parliament had to approve the king’s laws and it listed all the rights that the English citizens have. If there is no bill of rights the citizens wouldn’t know the rights that they have. The parliament was able to approve the king’s taxes and laws that are not fair to the English citizens. It clearly stated all the rights they had and if they didn’t follow them they would be punished. So more citizens wouldn’t get in trouble because they new the laws they have to follow.
ReplyDeleteAlex Kay period 1
As an Anti-Federalist I believe that the United States should create a bill of rights. The Constitution doesn’t cover everything; it doesn’t say all of a person’s rights. A bill of rights would benefit us very greatly; it would insure that everyone is equal. The people should know their rights so a bill of rights is necessary. We learned from the English that government can get out of hand because the officials do not act like equals to the rest of society. Considering that we definitely do not want a situation like the one we had with England, we should create a bill of rights to insure that the government has the same rights as the people. So we should have a bill of rights to guarantee that the government doesn’t have too much power and everyone has the same rights.
ReplyDelete~Katie/Melanchthon Smith Pd.4
Brian Moum Pd. 6
ReplyDeleteI, Melanchton Smith, am speaking in accord to the proposition that the newly formed Constitution of the United States of America not be ratified due to the need for it to be revised. The Constitution goes into many specific details about the formation of our government however important general necessities for forming a nation’s government are virtually overlooked. For example, the Constitution contains no formal Bill of Rights. However some argue that the rights of the people are protected by the current articles. But with no formal bill means that it is in the power of the government to remove these rights at their will. If we are to start a new nation that is run by the people then the people should have their rights known and protected. The exclusion of the formal bill of rights contradicts the basis of the Constitution which is to control all branches of government so none of them become too powerful and destructive it is the right of the people to abolish it. Without this and other important rights preserved in a bill of rights the government will become hungry with power and will destroy the newly forming nation from the inside out.
As Melanchthon Smith, I am an Anti-Federalist. This is because I don’t think that we should ratify the Constitution this is because I think that we should limit the power of the government because we don’t want to end up having a leader and we should all be equal. As the people we want to protect our rights as much as possible. Also we don’t want to get penalized if the government breaks a law that we made. That is why we should put in a bill of rights that states exactly what we want. Adding a bill of rights will take away any chances of the government finding a way around a rule and that we have some power and the government not over ruling. There are many great laws stated in the Constitution but we may need just to restate them because like I said before the federal government will find any way that they can to get money from us! Also we need to make our country as safe and secure as we can get so all I’m saying is a second look could never hurt and it may safe us a fortune.
ReplyDeleteKara Pd 6
Brad-9
ReplyDeleteAnti- Federalist
I, George Mason, think the Constitution should not be ratified for many reasons. One reason it should not be ratified because it would make the executive branch of the government too powerful. If the government becomes too powerful it will become a monarchy. A monarchy is bad because people want to vote for their leaders and want to have a say in things. Another reason why the Constitution should not be ratified is because it doesn’t include a bill of rights. A bill of rights is essential for protecting individuals against the power of the national government. I hope you consider this, and don’t ratify the Constitution.
Anti-Federalist
ReplyDeleteMy name is Patrick Henry Lee and I am an Anti-Federalist. I strongly believe that the Constitution should not be ratified. I think that a bill of rights needs to be added to protect the rights of citizens. The Constitution is completely disrespectful of the citizen’s rights because it doesn’t include a bill of rights and it’s like they aren’t even taking it into consideration. They just think a bill of rights would be irrelevant because the powers of the government are limited. But we don’t approve of that. If you think about it, the government will eventually have so much power under the Constitution that it will start to become a monarchy. And this isn’t good for the people either. They will feel like they are trapped in this government with this Constitution. This would give them enough power to tax the citizens and they would place too many expenses on the state government. They will have more strict laws made by the states and in the end it will all crash. The Constitution would not maintain a republic form of government because usually, the republic governments are in a place with a smaller community. And in these kinds of governments, mostly everyone was equal such as money. And this worked for them. But this new nation is much bigger than small communities and I really believe that it won’t be the same. People’s opinions on their common welfare will become more important. And it just would fall apart because not all of the people will be satisfied. Therefore, we should have a Bill of Rights to make the citizens know we have respect for their rights. And it will protect them from the amount of power the national government has.
Gabby
Period 9
I George Mason, am an anti-federalist. I dont think the Constitution should be ratifyed with out a bill of rights. I think that the Constitution needs a bill of rights because its essential for protecting individuals against the power of the national government. We anti-federalist's also believe that the Constitution should be equal between everyone. Therefore no one should get more power then the other. The powers of the national government are seperated and balanced among the three branches so no one can dominate the others. We make sure that the executive branch is watched so it cannot become a monarchy. I think that there should definitely be a bill of rights in the Constitution so no one gets more power then another.
ReplyDelete~deirdre Pd.6
My name is George Mason, I am an anti-federalist. In my opinion I believe that that the Constitution is a good idea. I like the idea of having the central government have more power than the states but I think there is one thing missing. We need to protect the people’s rights too, so that’s why the constitution needs to have a Bill of Rights. These ten amendments to the Constitution will help protect the people. If there is no rules saying what the people are allowed and not allowed to do, or what the government can and cannot do to the people the government would be able to overthrow the country because there is nothing saying that it can’t do that. If there was no Bill of Rights the government could tell the people to do anything they want and nothing would be able to stop them. The Bill of Rights ensures that the government can’t take control of this nation’s people. It simply protects the people’s right as human beings.
ReplyDeleteLuke Per.4