Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Summary:

Bill of rights

Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Krista Fantin 25 Oct 2010 19:26

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

aquillab 02 Nov 2010 21:08

1) According to the Federalists, the Bill of Rights was dangerous, due to the fact that if they forgot to include a particular right they risk not being able to have another opportunity to include that right. For example, if the composers of the Bill of Rights forgot to include freedom of speech, the Federalists would conclude that we would never get a chance to include that right.

• I disagree with this position, because our Constitution was created for a growing country. Although amending the Bill of Rights was not directly listed, our Constitution gave Congress the power to make any laws necessary and proper. If in the future a Bill of Rights was needed, Congress could make the Bill of Rights.The necessary and proper clause made it so that in the event where our country was in need of a particular law, Congress has the power to create it.
• The Constitution mainly lists the powers of the government, just as the Bill of Rights mainly listed the rights of the citizens. If the Constitution only lists the powers of the government, why didn't the Federalist see this as a danger to our country as well?
• By stating that the Bill of Rights was dangerous, this idea contradicted the whole purpose of the Constitution.

2)Due to the fact that the Federalists needed the votes of the Anti-Federalists, they had to compromise with the Anti-Federalists. The main thing that won the votes of the Anti-Federalists was the Bill of Rights, which gave us a sense of security; we now know that these rights can never be taken from us, thanks to the Anti-Federalists.

Last edited on 02 Nov 2010 22:50 by aquillab Show more

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

lenneita 02 Nov 2010 22:56

The federalists' argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights because people will think they only have protection for the rights that are actually listed.I disagree because everyone should know what all there rights are.

The Federalists eventually gave in and agreed to add a bill of rights to the Constitution by compromising to have a striving nation.

Last edited on 02 Nov 2010 23:00 by lenneita Show more

Re: Assignment 5: pp 101-102

Jaquan 17 Nov 2010 02:25

1) The Federalists didn't think that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights because they felt that if a Bill of Rights was created, then it would make it easier for the government to just find the rights that weren't listed and abuse those.

I see where the Federalists are coming from, but I'm inclined to disagree. The 9th amendment prevents the government from abusing the people's rights tat wre left out in the Constitution. Also I feel that if the people's rights are listed, then at the same it will limit what the people can do so that they won't take an unfair advantage of the government. A Bill of Rights, in my opinion makes things run much more smoothly.

2) The Federalists eventually gave in and agreed to add a bill of rights to the Constitution because without it, the Anti-federalists didin't feel that their rights were secure. They experienced having no rights while under British rule, and look how that turned out. They did not want to go through that again.