what is the purpose of the bill of rights? why were they added to the constitution? course hero
Chapter 2: The Constitution and Its Origins
The Ratification of the Constitution
LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this section, y'all will be able to:
- Identify the steps required to ratify the Constitution
- Describe arguments the framers raised in support of a stiff national government and counterpoints raised by the Anti-Federalists
On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted over the course of many months. Some did not back up it, only the majority did. Before information technology could become the law of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle. It had to be ratified past united states.
*Watch this video to learn more about the compromises made during the Ramble Convention.
THE RATIFICATION PROCESS
Commodity 7, the final article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become police force and a new government could grade, the document had to exist ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Eleven days after the delegates at the Philadelphia convention approved it, copies of the Constitution were sent to each of usa, which were to agree ratifying conventions to either accept or refuse it.
This approach to ratification was an unusual i. Since the authority inherent in the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress had rested on the consent of us, changes to the nation's authorities should also have been ratified by the state legislatures. Instead, by calling upon state legislatures to hold ratification conventions to approve the Constitution, the framers avoided request the legislators to approve a certificate that would require them to give upward a caste of their own power. The men attention the ratification conventions would be delegates elected by their neighbors to represent their interests. They were not being asked to relinquish their ability; in fact, they were being asked to place limits upon the power of their land legislators, whom they may not have elected in the first place. Finally, considering the new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives, information technology was considered advisable to leave the ultimate credence or rejection of the Constitution to the nation'southward citizens. If convention delegates, who were chosen past popular vote, approved information technology, and then the new government could rightly claim that information technology ruled with the consent of the people.
The greatest sticking indicate when it came to ratification, as it had been at the Constitutional Convention itself, was the relative ability of the state and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and forcefulness united states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would non survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of us. Virginia'due south Patrick Henry, for example, feared that the newly created function of president would place excessive power in the hands of 1 man. He as well disapproved of the federal government's new ability to tax its citizens. This right, Henry believed, should remain with usa.
Other delegates, such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution considering it created a new federal judicial organisation. Their fright was that the federal courts would exist too far away from where those who were tried lived. State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and it was believed that judges and juries in state courts could better understand the actions of those who appeared earlier them. In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states every bit well as in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, which was part of Virginia.[1]
Perhaps the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the constabulary and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had practiced religious tolerance too. The Constitution, even so, did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do and so. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious examination for holding office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution's opponents to call for a nib of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one. The lack of a bill of rights was peculiarly problematic in Virginia, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights was the near extensive rights-granting document among the states. The promise that a bill of rights would exist drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification.[ii]
INSIDER PERSPECTIVE
Thomas Jefferson on the Nib of Rights
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson carried on a lively correspondence regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In the following excerpt (reproduced as written) from a letter dated March 15, 1789, after the Constitution had been ratified past ix states but before it had been canonical by all thirteen, Jefferson reiterates his previously expressed concerns that a beak of rights to protect citizens' freedoms was necessary and should exist added to the Constitution:
"In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, . . . I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this subpoena. The Declaration of rights is like all other man blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it's object. But the good in this example vastly overweighs the evil. . . . This musical instrument [the Constitution] forms united states of america into one state as to sure objects, and gives us a legislative & executive torso for these objects. Information technology should therefore guard us against their abuses of power. . . . Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is non admittedly efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great authorisation always, and rarely inefficacious. . . . There is a remarkeable difference between the . . . Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, & those which nourish the want of it. . . . The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable: they are in abiding progression from bad to worse."[three]
What were some of the inconveniences of not having a bill of rights that Jefferson mentioned? Why did he make up one's mind in favor of having one?
It was clear how some states would vote. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution. Equal representation in the Senate would requite them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national authorities with an army at its command would be better able to defend them than their state militias could. Larger states, however, had significant ability to lose. They did not believe they needed the federal government to defend them and disliked the prospect of having to provide tax money to back up the new government. Thus, from the very beginning, the supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. That would mean all 9 of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest country, was unlikely to exercise then. Information technology had not even sent delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. And even if it joined the other states in ratifying the document and the requisite ix votes were cast, the new nation would not exist secure without its largest, wealthiest, and most populous states every bit members of the union.
THE RATIFICATION Entrada
On the question of ratification, citizens chop-chop separated into ii groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The supported it. They tended to exist amid the elite members of gild—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and former military machine commanders who believed a stiff government would be better for both national defense and economic growth. A national currency, which the federal government had the power to create, would ease business transactions. The ability of the federal government to regulate trade and place tariffs on imports would protect merchants from foreign contest. Furthermore, the power to collect taxes would allow the national government to fund internal improvements like roads, which would also aid businessmen. Support for the Federalists was especially potent in New England.
Opponents of ratification were called . Anti-Federalists feared the power of the national authorities and believed state legislatures, with which they had more than contact, could better protect their freedoms. Although some Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, were wealthy, most distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich over those of "the middling sort." This was certainly the fear of Melancton Smith, a New York merchant and landowner, who believed that power should rest in the hands of small, landowning farmers of average wealth who "are more temperate, of better morals and less ambitious than the great."[four] Even members of the social aristocracy, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the creation of a political aristocracy, to the detriment of state sovereignty and private liberty.
Related to these concerns were fears that the strong primal regime Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them. Many as well believed Congress would impose tariffs on strange imports that would make American agricultural products less welcome in Europe and in European colonies in the western hemisphere. For these reasons, Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially potent in the South.
Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the large federal commonwealth that the Constitution would create could not work every bit intended. Americans had long believed that virtue was necessary in a nation where people governed themselves (i.e., the ability to put self-involvement and piddling concerns aside for the skillful of the larger community). In small republics, similarities among members of the customs would naturally pb them to the same positions and make it easier for those in power to understand the needs of their neighbors. In a larger republic, ane that encompassed near the entire Eastern Seaboard and ran west to the Appalachian Mountains, people would lack such a potent commonality of interests.[5]
Likewise, Anti-Federalists argued, the diversity of religion tolerated past the Constitution would prevent the germination of a political community with shared values and interests. The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious didactics, and Article VI explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to make up one's mind eligibility for public office. This caused many, like Henry Abbot of North Carolina, to fear that government would be placed in the easily of "pagans . . . and Mahometans [Muslims]."[half dozen]
It is difficult to determine how many people were Federalists and how many were Anti-Federalists in 1787. The Federalists won the day, just they may non have been in the majority. Starting time, the Federalist position tended to win support among businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners. These people tended to live along the Eastern Seaboard. In 1787, almost of us were divided into voting districts in a manner that gave more votes to the eastern part of the country than to the western part.[seven] Thus, in some states, like Virginia and South Carolina, small farmers who may have favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect equally many delegates to country ratification conventions as those who lived in the due east. Small settlements may also have lacked the funds to send delegates to the convention.[8]
In all united states of america, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or confronting ratification. Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are at present all-time known. The arguments these authors put forth, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would exist added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.
For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a stiff federal government. Delaware and New Bailiwick of jersey ratified the document within a few months later on it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified information technology early in 1788. Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth country to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.
Although the Constitution went into outcome following ratification by New Hampshire, 4 states still remained outside the newly formed spousal relationship. Ii were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison'south active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote messages to the convention, inverse the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such as Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the cosmos of a stiff union was necessary for the land's survival and inverse their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Announcement of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its blessing.
The approval of New York was the final major hurdle. Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that country, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a stiff federal authorities and support of the Constitution. Subsequently compiled as The Federalist and now known as , these fourscore-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the proper name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.
The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens. For example, in Federalist No. 51, attributed to James Madison, the author assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow also powerful. The federal system, in which ability was divided between the national and state governments, and the partitioning of authority within the federal authorities into separate branches would prevent whatever one role of the regime from becoming besides strong. Furthermore, tyranny could not arise in a government in which "the legislature necessarily predominates." Finally, the desire of office holders in each branch of government to exercise the powers given to them, described equally "personal motives," would encourage them to limit any try by the other branches to overstep their say-so. According to Madison, "Appetite must be made to counteract ambition."
Other essays countered different criticisms made of the Constitution and echoed the statement in favor of a potent national government. In Federalist No. 35, for example, Hamilton argued that people's interests could in fact be represented by men who were not their neighbors. Indeed, Hamilton asked rhetorically, would American citizens all-time be served past a representative "whose observation does not travel across the circumvolve of his neighbors and his acquaintances" or by someone with more extensive knowledge of the world? To those who argued that a merchant and land-owning elite would come to dominate Congress, Hamilton countered that the majority of men currently sitting in New York'due south country senate and associates were landowners of moderate wealth and that artisans unremarkably chose merchants, "their natural patron[southward] and friend[s]," to represent them. An elite would non arise, and if information technology did, its members would have been chosen by lesser men. Similarly, Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that matrimony had been the goal of Americans since the time of the Revolution. A desire for union was natural among people of such "similar sentiments" who "were united to each other by the strongest ties," and the government proposed by the Constitution was the all-time means of achieving that spousal relationship.
Objections that an elite grouping of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and big landowners would come to boss the nation's politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10. Americans demand not fearfulness the power of factions or special interests, he argued, for the republic was besides large and the interests of its people too diverse to allow the development of big, powerful political parties. As well, elected representatives, who were expected to "possess the most attractive merit," would protect the government from being controlled past "an unjust and interested [biased in favor of their own interests] majority."
For those who worried that the president might indeed grow likewise ambitious or king-like, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, provided assurance that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of ane person was not unsafe. Electors from each land would select the president. Because these men would be members of a "transient" body chosen together simply for the purpose of choosing the president and would meet in separate deliberations in each state, they would exist gratuitous of abuse and across the influence of the "heats and ferments" of the voters. Indeed, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70, instead of existence afraid that the president would go a tyrant, Americans should realize that it was easier to control i person than it was to command many. Furthermore, one person could also act with an "free energy" that Congress did not possess. Making decisions lone, the president could determine what actions should be taken faster than could Congress, whose deliberations, because of its size, were necessarily slow. At times, the "determination, action, secrecy, and acceleration" of the master executive might exist necessary.
LINK TO LEARNING
The Library of Congress has The Federalist Papers on their website. The Anti-Federalists also produced a body of writings, less extensive than The Federalists Papers, which argued against the ratification of the Constitution. Nonetheless, these were not written by 1 minor group of men as The Federalist Papers had been. A collection of the writings that are unofficially chosen The Anti-Federalist Papers is also available online.
The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, but whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. One time Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little selection just to exercise so as well. If it did non ratify the Constitution, it would be the concluding large state that had non joined the marriage. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York's ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A year later, Northward Carolina became the 12th land to corroborate. Alone and realizing it could not hope to survive on its ain, Rhode Isle became the terminal state to ratify, most two years after New York had done so.
FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND
Term Limits
1 of the objections raised to the Constitution's new regime was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president. Those who opposed a strong fundamental government argued that this failure could permit a handful of powerful men to proceeds control of the nation and rule it for every bit long as they wished. Although the framers did non anticipate the idea of career politicians, those who supported the Constitution argued that reelecting the president and reappointing senators past land legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises. A president who did not prove to be a good leader would be voted out of office instead of being reelected. In fact, presidents long followed George Washington's example and limited themselves to two terms. Only in 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected iv times, was the Twenty-2d Subpoena passed to restrict the presidency to 2 terms.
Are term limits a good idea? Should they have originally been included in the Constitution? Why or why not? Are there times when term limits might not be good?
CHAPTER REVIEW
Run into the Chapter 2.4 Review for a summary of this section, the cardinal vocabulary, and some review questions to check your knowledge.
Source: https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/pos2041bw/chapter/the-ratification-of-the-constitution/
0 Response to "what is the purpose of the bill of rights? why were they added to the constitution? course hero"
Post a Comment