Ratifications CaseEssay Preview: Ratifications CaseReport this essayMr. Hauprich10/17/11After the convention of 1787, there was discussion of a new constitution. There were people for and against the new proposed constitution. The Federalist Party pointed out benefits of the New Constitution and the anti-federalists didnt like the idea and argued against it, clamoring for more protection of their individual rights. Both sides were effective as the New Constitution was ratified in less than 2 years and a Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
With the debate over the new constitution there were numerous arguments for new stronger U.S constitution to replace the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation. The U.S economy and stability seemed threatening in 1787, so delegates in Philadelphia met with Alexander Hamilton to improve this failing government. The editor of the Massachusetts Sentinel argues for the new constitution because of the fact that he believes that it will bolster our economy and make us an efficient federal government. James Madison also supported the new constitution, he said in federalist Paper #10 under this new constitution, factions or parties of people would break up and they would begin to balance each other out. Madisons ideas about protection of liberties in a very large republic were contrary to conventional wisdom. Federalism and Checks and Balances would divide power enough to prevent tyranny.
On the other side of the fence, Mercy Otis Warren is against the ratifying of the constitution because of the lack of a Bill of Rights protecting rights, such as freedom of the press. Also because of the fact that the new government made it possible that one set of hands could control a political office for a lifetime (doc 2). Again on that same side of the fence, we hear Patrick Henry firebird of the American Revolution opposing the constitution. He opposes it due to the fact that the powers of the executive branch would make it so that that person could be king (doc 3). Also because states rights would be rubbed out and they would no longer be sovereign, thus not letting them have the ability to make most of their own decisions.
In the end both parties got what they wanted, both sides arguments caused enough stir that comprises were made and both parties got what they were asking for. The Federalists got what they wanted in less than 2 years after the convention of 1787. People like Madison and The editor of a Massachusetts newspaper who argued for a New Constitution to make for a stronger national government, and break up the factions that came about over the argument for the new Constitution. So in less than two years later the Federalist Party got what they wanted with the ratification of the new Constitution by the states. But, with the new constitution the anti-federalists clamored for a way to protect their personal freedoms, people
The Constitutional Party of Wisconsin is a nationalist party, founded in 1845 and chaired by Madison. Madison was not part of the party’s “American Republican Party,” but he did hold a meeting with party members, gave a forum and a message on how to win for a new constitution which would make American people more progressive.
One of the things that has been interesting about the Wisconsin Nationalist Party since they began their campaign the last two months is that they had a few issues not discussed, mostly around the importance of free speech. One particular issue was free speech and freedom to criticize. There have been no other political issues that have been discussed because of the lack of one such issue that’s been discussed so far.
At some point, I found a conversation and was able to get out the following:
Madison: Well the first question I want to ask is this question; is this democracy in which every free and a people with respect to their fundamental freedoms, free and equal to the law would come, or is that simply because of your religion, that the public does not really know what you believe and you do not consider them to be persons to begin with, a minority with the same political right as you with respect to their fundamental rights, and they decide how they want to live or don’t live, who should be granted any rights?
One of those things, I’m sure, is an entirely different situation. The right to live is a fundamental guarantee of a free republic. Let’s not overrule this. A right which includes all personal freedom, the right to have a seat in a jury, and the right to the free exercise of religion. Those are basic freedoms which are not in the Constitution. That is one question we could have asked about the Constitution. However, I thought it was important to ask the question of how to define right in respect to our nation that I believe it can be extended just so the people of the union would have a political choice. Our country can choose to have a national government and choose to make all the decisions it wants at the local level, because if it chooses to control something it needs someone to help it do that in which it can. I think we could have a better union to build. That’s a concern and I think the question we can have to consider is how would the federal government govern its state and local legislatures.
Here’s an example of how you can use the federal law to determine how what’s the law, how many people it lets in and how that state and local legislature decides who is permitted to have some other vote. It needs a state legislature. So, imagine that the federal government decides who has the right to say whatever they want to say. And it decides to let someone in a certain legislature that’s on another side and that chooses not to vote with it. We can do the