Ratification of the Constitution, Essay Example

What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the constitution?

James Madison realized the importance of the ratification of the Constitution and knew that the ratification would forever shape the republican government in the United States. The Federalists were the supporters of the Constitution who stated that the Constitution was needed to provide a more organized manner for a stronger centralized government. The Anti-federalists felt that the Constitution was too formal and legalized and would eventually diminish the power of each individual state to provide for the citizens. Further they argued that a new nationalized government would strip the people of their rights to make decisions with regards to civil liberties and diminish the order and unity that they had been striving to develop thus far.

Some influential members of the Federalist side were “James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, writing under the pseudonym Publius, wrote dozens of articles supporting the Constitution which are now collectively referred to as The Federalist Papers. Articles written in response by George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and Patrick Henry are, appropriately, known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.” (“Ratification”).

Without a Constitution in force there was a lack of common currency for exchange, defence policy disputes and common trade disputes amongst nations. The main reason the anti-federalist opposed the formation of the Constitution is that they feared a strong enough policy of checks and balances could be supplied and sustained to keep the central government in check to prevent them from totalitarian reign. The anti-federalist firmly believed that in order to preserve liberty and freedom amongst a nation the people must keep the government very small and as close to their reach as possible. They felt that the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause gave rise to government supremacy and a lack of protection for the rights of the people.  There seemed to be no limits on supremacy and power of the government. The anti-federalist particularly argued that the national constitution should list the rights of the people since the state constitution did such that. Through the Madison Compromise it was asserted that the amendments would give rise to the Bill of Rights and this is what won the support of many Anti-Federalists. “Delaware, one of the smaller states, was the first state to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787, followed by Pennsylvania on December 12th of the same year.” (“Ratification”).

A very unique identity was created with the development and ratification of the United States Constitution. The government was given certain powers of which they are bound to exercise, the people were given standards by which the government has to follow and the police were given certain discretionary powers they can exercise within limits. In other countries such as the United Kingdom there is no true Constitution. There is a transparent code of Constitutional laws by which the Prime Minister and Queen operates which is not set in stone but which operates under codes and conventions. Some historians and politicians feel this sort of non-entrenched Constitution works better for the people because the laws can always be challenged if the people feel their rights are being infringed. However if a Constitution is entrenched as in the United States, it takes a two-thirds vote by Congress to overturn a law.

Just as a handful of men connected the debate and gave rise to supremacy to form the most significant documents in the United States, the people of today can stand force to gain the power back that the government has taken away from us. I agree with the Anti-Federalists point of view. The government has become too powerful. There is a system of checks and balances in the legislative, judicial and executive however each of these three branches are given ‘discretionary powers’ to act and sometimes with these powers come abuse. It is at this time that the people have no control over the abuses of the government and the judiciary. Perhaps the people should not have fought so hard for a clearly structured Constitution or configured a document with rights that were geared to protect the inalienable rights of the citizens by eliminating the ‘discretionary’ powers of the government and the police.

References

Ratification (2008) Ratification Retrieved November 8, 2009 from, http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-ratify.html