Consitution Essay This work is considered exceptional by our editorial staff.

February 10, 2010
Custom User Avatar
More by this author
First, there was a violent revolution. The American colonies had rejected British rule. A new government had to be created. Several leaders were assigned the task of creating a new country. Our new country needed a document that enumerated the rules by which our citizens could coexist and prosper. The proposed document came to be called The Constitution. The individuals who crafted the document represented a number of backgrounds, interests, and opinions. Through discussion, debate, and compromise, we became one nation.

There were two major view points competing for dominance of the new government. The framers of the document had to balance the interests of many different groups. They could not give favor to the city dwellers over the farmers. They could not favor one region over another. The document had to be fair to everyone. The opposing groups came to be known as federalists and anti-federalists.

The federalists believed in a strong, central government. They wanted to create a congress to write laws for their nation. This congress would be given through section eight of the constitution the power to collect taxes, to regulate commerce, to coin money, and to organize a national postal system.

Congress would also define and punish a number of crimes, create tribunals inferior to the supreme court, create armies, declare war, among other things. The central government would be limited under section nine from taxing state exports, conferring titles of nobility, or basically creating commerce regulations that favor one state over another.

Anti Federalists were concerned that a powerful central government would place too many limits on state’s rights. They argued that in section eight the federal government would be allowed ‘to make all laws witch shall be necessary and proper’. Thus, giving essentially unlimited power to congress. They feared wording that made the constitution the quote ‘supreme law of the land’. Some believed that the states should control raising of armies, and objected to the president being the commander-n-chief of a national army. They did not agree with unlimited reelection of congress men. To them, a strong central government meant fewer individual liberties less local control over issues and a weaker response to the needs of specific areas.

To appeal to anti-federalists, the federalists added a Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution. The first amendment gives freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The second amendment allows the states to raise their own armies in addition to the Federal Army and the right to own fire arms. A particularly important amendment is the tenth, which says that ‘powers not delegated to the United States’ nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I tend to agree with the position of the Anti-Federalists. The rights of the many might win over the concerns of the few too often. They feared that some communities might lose their lifestyle or tradition to the attitudes of the majority. They wanted freedom of the individual to prevail over the whim of the masses. They knew that sometimes majority rule could become mob rule. I do not believe the constitution should have been ratified. We Anti Federalists should have held out a document that better served our interests.

If the constitution had included more ideas of the anti-federalists perhaps we would have a much smaller central government. Income taxes might be lower, communities might have more say in their laws and have their tax money as used. Perhaps our government would better reflect the wants and needs of individual communities and be less influenced by banks, insurance companies, auto manufactures, big business, and lobbyists. Even so, we the people can still change the Constitution if enough of us believe it needs to be.

Post a Comment

Be the first to comment on this article!

Site Feedback