Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Summary:

Ratification succeeds

Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Krista Fantin 24 Oct 2010 22:10

1) Explain the Federalists' argument that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights. Do you agree with this position? Why or why not?
2) Why did the Federalists eventually give in and agree to add a bill of rights to the Constitution?

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Joshua R 03 Nov 2010 01:41

The Federalist argued that the bill of rights was not necessary to put in the constitution because it would be a waist. they believed that they shouldn't have to put powers of the people in the constitution when they already know what they can and cant do.

I disagree with this opinion. I thought that adding the bill of rights was a very necessary part of the constitution. the bill of rights is what protects the people from the national government. and by doing this, it also would make things clearer instead of future generations having to assume what they as citizens had as far as power against the government.

I think that the reason the Federalist gave in and agreed to add the Bill of rights because they needed the powerful states like Virginia in order to for the process to continue without much problem so they agreed to add the bill so they could get a bigger majority vote in order to ratify the Constitution.

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

davetown traynham 03 Nov 2010 02:42

I agree with Josh when he states that the federalist believed that the government did not need a bill of rights. That is because they believed that checks and balances and enumerated powers would limit the amount of power the national government had and would make it unable to be tyrannous.

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

kwangKN 15 Nov 2010 01:31

I agree with Josh that the bill of rights is necessary because without the bill of rights,the government can use the power that not listed in the enumerate power to harm people. In order to make sure that the individual rights are protected, the bill of rights is the best solution. I also want to add to Josh about the Federalist gave in and agreed to add the bill of rights that if Virginia and New York did not ratify the Constitution, the U.S. could split because the geography and both states also powerful with the large population and wealth.

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Tanisha Tate 16 Nov 2010 23:31

The Federalists beleived that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights because essentially the Constitution already gives the people the power remove elected officials from power. Meaning that the national government could not abuse its power among the people because they held majority power to remove them. Another reason federalist beleived the bill of rights was uneccessary was because if bill of rights was placed in the constitution it would give the people the impression that they oonly are entitled to those listed which would be false.
I agree with the position of the federalist because in putting the bill of rights all it does is re-state the right peopl already know they have limiting them to think that thats all they have.
Federalist finally gave in to add the bill of rights to gain the support of the two major states that held majority popullation Virginia and New York of the constitution because if they did not ratify the constitution is would put the U.S at risk of splitting apart.