Was the Bill of Rights Necessary
In 1787, a group of men got together in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation under which the United States had been operating. When the Constitutional Convention decided to propose a federal government instead, they faced the enormous challenge of persuading the American people to accept the central government they had learned to distrust and fear. Many were hesitant to give up the Confederation that helped bring them through the American Revolution that brought them freedom from a great tyrant. Because of this, a great debate arouse between the federalists and the anti-federalists. The great question became, Is a bill of rights necessary? Without it, the United States constitution would have never lasted. Contrary to popular opinion, the United States Constitution does not give any rights to the people. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, a man's rights are given to him by his creator. The constitution merely exists to limit and restrain government powers. Publius states in Federalist 84, “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.” (Publius, 1787, 8). Federalists believed that the bill of rights was not needed to pr
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Patrick Henry, Publius Federalist, Bill Rights, Constitutional Convention, Magna Charta, bill rights, American Revolution, Declaration Independence, american people, United Constitution, , fundamental rights, rights constitution, publius 1787, central government, Confederation United, constitution bill rights, constitution bill, fair trial, united constitution, list fundamental rights, jury peers, bill rights constitution, rights people stated, people founding fathers,
Approximate Word count = 1192
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
