Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Anti-Federalist Rebuttals to the Federalist Arguments
The Federalists have been successful in persuading a number of the states to ratify the Constitution but the influential states of Virginia and New York have yet to vote. Review the Fedralists' arguments and formulate three specific counterarguments/rebuttals. Remember to identify yourself as your Anti-Federalist persona and your name/period. Please begin each rebuttal by identifying the specific Federalist argument that you wish to respond to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Caroline M/George Mason rebuttal to Erica R/James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou state that the government can "check in" on each other to make sure no one obtains too much power, but the branches could make an agreement to not "check into" each other. Saying that, I won't interfere with your work and you won't interfere with mine. Seeing as the national government has so much power they might have enough to do just that. Also, there should be a bill of rights to state what rights people have when facing government issues, or should we not give them those rights? I say The Constitution should not be ratified.
Caroline M/George Mason rebuttal to Allison Lee/James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about "the people" and how they will not quetion what rights they have, well chances are they will. The people would like to know their rights when facing the government and their rights to the freedom and liberty of living in America. We must list their rights in a bill of rights so they can refer to it when questioning their rights. They have/need that right.
Caitlyn T, period 2 (Melanchthon Smith) rebuttal to Jake, period 9 (John Jay)
ReplyDeleteIn your aguement you stated 'the power and control of America relies with in every single one of us', but this is not always true. Yes, we can vote for some of our leaders, but if they become corrupt under the power of Congress, there is almost nothing we can do. We can try to have them impeached, but that is a long, difficult process that wouldn't need to happen if we give the government less power in the first place. Having a Congress with too much power can only lead to problems.
Brendan Pd.2/George Clinton
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to James Madison/Joey Pd.2
James Madison, you state that "any rights you can think of" will be protected if there is no bill of rights, but that would lead to chaos. Citizens would do crazy things like assume that they have rights of not paying taxes and the government would make rights that would destroy the Constitution. If more legit rights are needed, the national government could always make more rights for the bill.
Sarah Pd.4/Elbridge Gerry
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to James Madison
James Madison, you said that there would not be too much power in the government under the Constitution. But the government will indeed have too much power no matter what you say. That is because they will get power crazy from just having the freedom to have more power than they did under the Articles of Confederation. They will start to act crazy which will make the whole country a disaster. Also, even though there would be separation of powers, everyone would have their job to do. That means that if one little thing goes wrong or someone doesn’t do exactly what they have to do, the whole government would fall apart. If the Constitution is ratified now, there would be too much power in the national government.
Caroline King Period #4
ReplyDeleteMelanchton Smith
James Madison is wrong on many points. For starters, you believe that a bill of rights is unnecessary- however, you are foolish for putting such undoubting trust in the government and believing that no government in the future will attempt to violate the rights of the people. To that, the Federalists argue that the government is not given enough power to do that, yet the president is like a monarch, the people do not have enough say, and the limits of the government are not well defined. The constitution definitely needs work and a bill of rights before you can even consider ratifying it.
Virginie/George Mason rebuttal to Brendan/John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou said that the national government will use their power for trade and defense, but how do you know? The bill of rights is there because people in the national government could use their abuse their power and use their power on things besides trade and defense. You also mention that it won’t turn into a dictatorship thanks to the system of checks and balances, but the three houses could pass an agreement to stop using the system of checks and balances and let each other abuse their power. The bill of rights would be there if the branches are being unfair and not using their power properly, which could very easily happen.
Leia/ Patrick Henry Lee respomding to federalist Madie/James Madison
ReplyDeleteJames Madison is talking about the fact that we don’t need a bill of rights because that would be saying that we only expect the rights that are only listed. Although this is true, the people of the country need some protection just in case the government abuses its power. The people of the county just fought a long hard war trying to get rid of a monarch and a bill of rights would secure our protection and not let the government take away any of our rights. Although we only have ten rights listed, it is better than having the national government sweep away all of our rights and us having no freedom.
Caroline M/George Mason rebuttal to Allison Lee/James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about "the people" and how they will not question what rights they have, well chances are they will. The people would like to know their rights when facing the government and their rights to the freedom and liberty of living in America. We must list their rights in a bill of rights so they can refer to it when questioning their rights. They have/need that right. Second, you say that the government won’t turn into a tyranny, but we don’t know that. They could go against the limitations in their area of government to obtain more power; the national government has enough power to do so. The Constitution should not be ratified without a bill of rights made.
Vikranth Pd.4/George Mason rebuttal to James Madison/Belle Pd.2
ReplyDeleteJames Madison, you claim that "We have placed many limitations on it including the checks and balances and the separation of power so no branch or person could gain and abuse too much power". Although the Constitution does have checks and balances, and separates the powers of government, it is not adequate to protect the state's powers. The rights of state governments and the people have to be more explicit. The national government can do whatever they want over the state government and the people. This is because no one can say exactly what the Constitution states on the subject. So, I strongly believe that a bill of rights is essential in order to prevent a monarchy to arise.
Vikranth Pd.4/ George Mason rebuttal to George Washington/Sanjay Pd.4
ReplyDeleteGeorge, you say that it is dangerous to have a bill of rights because the government will assume that those rights that are not stated are illegal. But, in fact, it would be dangerous not to list the rights. If the Constitution does not specifically say all of our rights, the government can presume anything to be or not to be a right. They are able to say this without anyone saying that it is unconstitutional because the Constitution is not explicit enough. You state that a bill of rights is unnecessary because the rights are a given. That is also too unclear because it can be easily misunderstood. Our natural rights can be anything and our government can easily use that for their own special interests. So, our Constitution definitely requires a bill of rights to ensure our country does not fall under dictatorship.
Leia/Patrick Henry Lee responds to Federalist George Washington/Claire
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington states that the national government will make decisions for the country as a whole, but they will not be able to do that when they are located so far away from most states. We should give more to the power to the individual states that way the government will be closer to deal with local issues in the states and not so isolated from everyone. When there is only one government that is going to over power the representatives from the states, there is a chance that it will turn into tyranny and risk another monarchy with a King.
Vikranth Pd.4/George Mason rebuttal to Rebecca Pd.2/ John Jay
ReplyDeleteJohn, I strongly believe that you are incorrect when you claim that a bill of rights is not needed because the preamble describes the rights of the people sufficiently. The preamble does the very opposite because it is extremely broad. When the preamble stated “to promote general welfare” that can mean anything. The government can twist the preamble to give themselves more power. For example, the government may impose higher taxes and say that the money promotes general welfare when, in fact, it goes to their own treasury. The federal government can do anything in the name of ‘general welfare’, without worrying if anyone will say that it is unconstitutional because the Constitution is not clear on this matter. As a result, our newly formed country could become a monarchy again and our victory will be in vain.
Charlotte period 4: Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteTo George Washington
Although you stated that it is essential to have a strong central government, powerful state governments can be just as effective, or even more so. Central governments are too far away from most cities, and there are only limited methods of communication. Therefore, the government could rule the people through the military, and this will eventually result in a tyranny. Also, even though the government has a system of checks and balances, they can find other ways of abusing their power, inevitably impacting the citizens. This system also does not assure that the government will follow these guidelines.
In addition, the government might not make better decisions for the whole country. In fact, it certainly will not if the Constitution does not include a bill of rights. You said that a bill of rights would limit the government’s powers. This is another reason why we need a bill of rights besides protecting the citizen’s rights. The government is about the people, and if the government had absolute power and control, than it would become a monarchy.
Charlotte period 4: Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteTo John Jay
Although us anti-federalists do not have specific events to show why a bill of rights is necessary for a successful nation, we do know how it is to be taken advantage of by the government. For example, when we were being ruled by England, we were being highly taken advantage of, and we would never want that to happen to us again. The bill of rights can be a good reference for times such as this.
Even though one may think that the government’s powers are so limited, they are too far away and secluded from the rest of the nation to make these assumptions. The government may very well plan to take over the country as a whole behind our backs, although citizens may think they follow the system of checks and balances. This proves that state governments can be just as effective, and they are in a more local position. These reasons show that many ideas that the federalists have about the federal government and Constitution are ineffective, and that we need a bill of rights to secure the citizen’s natural rights.
Rebuttal to Ben Period 4/George Washington
ReplyDeleteGeorge, without a bill of rights the government will have too much freedom in interpreting the constitution. The government will not have a hard time in bending or twisting our “natural rights” to their own interests. We obviously need restrictions to the federal government so that they do not get out of control with power and become corrupt. In your argument you said that government would be more organized the Federalist way than the Anti-Federalist way. That statement does not make any sense at all because you are the one arguing to keep the Constitution simpler. Anti-Federalists are pushing for a bill of rights to be added to the constitution which will cause the future government to be more organized. So by saying that we are pushing for a less organized government is hypocrisy because that is exactly what you are doing.
Kyle period 4
Rebuttal to Sanjay Period 4/George Washington
ReplyDeleteGeorge, how could it be dangerous to list the rights of the people? That seems completely ridiculous because of anything it would likely comfort them. If you think that we, as a group of politicians, could not pull together a list of all the natural rights that we have as a free nation, then you are simply underestimating and offending every member of these conventions. We are not a bunch of dim-witted politicians. We can take on responsibility for composing an absolutely necessary bill of rights for our nation. Without one, the Supreme Court would have to interpret the very vague description of “natural rights” every time a court case was presented to them. There would be a new interpretation every time and without consistency the nation would soon loose trust in its unpredictable justice system. A bill of rights should absolutely be added into the constitution because it is simply not okay the way it currently is.
Kyle period 4
Ethan F p.1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Chris p.1/ John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou say that if we don’t ratify the Constitution, selfish groups will begin to form. Well first of all these groups won’t be able to form if we the people are able to create a bill of rights. A document where there can be the rights each and every individual has. With this document, the selfish groups that you say will start to form will be limited to the rights written on the document. This problem will be solved easily by making one simple change and this change would be a document. The document that we the people will be able to refer to know what they are able to do.
Ethan F p.1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Chris p.1/ John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou state that with a large republic our national government would be very good at protecting our rights. Really, is that the truth? What would happen when the government stops becoming good at protecting our rights? What would happen then, we would be under another monarchy. If we don’t get our rights written down soon we can all be goners. The government will be limited in power. They would have to take care of our needs first, like healthcare and education. Proving that if we have our rights expected by the government, we will be rights back where we started.
Ethan F. p.1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Maddie p.1/ James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou say in your argument that there shouldn’t be “the bill of rights.” Since you are saying the bill of rights you should not be ratifying the Constitution. We are just asking for “a bill of rights,” and you seem to insist in changing that and make it become part of the Constitution. With a bill of rights this document can become much more because we the people would know our rights and not expect them. A bill of rights and the bill of rights are two totally different ideas. Proving that by saying the bill of rights, you are in agreement in making a bill of rights.
Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry Lee/Michael pd1 against Federalist John Jay/Jake
ReplyDeleteYou state that the government must be strong so the constitution must be ratified. But, we may not want a strong central government. The lsat strong government we had was with King George and he was a tyrant. And you also say that the governments job is to protect our rights but what if they only want to protect themselves? The bill of rights that we Anti-Federalists say that a bill of rights would protect our rights in this situation and truely protect our rights. Next you say that the three branches of government can do checks and balences so neither can become more powerful but what if all of the branches become corrupt and too powerful? This is why we need a bill of rights to protect us.
Mary Rippe pd. 1 - Kelly pd. 9
ReplyDeleteYou proclaim that our nation is too large to be govorned by one supremecy. Think about China, or Australia. Those countries are far greater and more populated then our thirteen colonies and are being governed sufficiantly. With the Constitution, our government can also be governed efficiantly because of the rules and restrictions that it sets upon people and the rulers alike. You also said that "since this government would have so much power that it wouldn’t be able to look out for the common interest of every person in the nation". This statement is quite untrue for the government is not the supreme ruler! Our government is based on a system in which the people elect other officials to represent their interests and wants. Lastly, you say that with such 'diverse opinions' that our government could never run efficiantly. Well, isn't it true that all successful civilizations are based on different thoughts and ideas? Learning to accept people is a part of life and a government and the people that wish to co-operate with others and accept their ideas are the next pioneers of our country.
Edwin Gee/Melanchthon Smith rebuttal to James Madison/Maddie
ReplyDeleteWith your argument, you're saying that the power of the government is already limited and we don't need a bill of rights. Yet, you say that the three branches of government will be able to keep each other in line. That's what should have happened with King George and Parliament, but King George was still all powerful. If the officials in the branches are corrupt, it will just be the same way with the executive branch. Without a bill of rights, how can we be sure that they will keep the people in mind instead of themselves? If the government has officials that can’t do their job, then the government will fail just like the articles of confederation: everyone will just argue amongst themselves, trying to get power over everyone else. Instead of a democracy, the government will become the worst form it can become, a tyranny.
Brendan Pd.2/George Clinton
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to James Madison/Maddie Pd.1
First, you state that making a Bill of Rights would be harmful because it would limit the rights of the people because they "could only expect protection of the rights actually listed." This is false however, because the bill of rights is just an insurance, an easy yet secure method of giving the people examples of rights incase they are threatened. It is false to assume that because rights could be added to the bill of rights. It is most definatly not set in stone. The first 10 amendments are not the only ones, just a list to get started. Using this information, it is clear that the bill of rights is necessary.
Edwin Gee/Melanchthon Smith to Joey/James Madison
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is that we don’t need a bill of rights because that is what everyone will expect to be protected only, but I disagree. The Bill of Rights is for precautionary measures when the national government is given too much power by laws they decide to pass. Even if it is unlikely, there can still be a chance that the national government will abuse their power. Also, in your argument, you said that any right you think of will be protected. But every person thinks differently, and there can be some rights you didn’t think of for the people. How can we be sure that these are protected, when we don’t know specifically what they’re thinking?
to Kelly period 4- Belle H. period 2.
ReplyDeleteIn your article you mention” too much power can lead to tyranny which means citizens of the new country could lose the rights we won and deserve”. I believe that with the Constitution we could never have a tyranny again. We have made many rules including checks and balance so that branches can check up on other braches so no group or person could gain too much power which could eventually lead to an American down fall. When making the constitution we were certain that no group could gain too much power. With the Constitution it’s true that we will be giving the central government more power, but with-in that power we were cautious with what powers we chose for them to gain, they can only have the ability to engage in trade, currency and defense. Ratifying the Constitution would benefit the whole United States and will benefit everyone of the citizens.
Caitlyn T, period 2 (Melanchthon Smith) rebuttal to Rebecca P, period 2 (John Jay)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree with you when you say the Articles of Confederation were not suitable, I also disagree with your belief that the Constitution is perfect. Without a Bill of Rights, the Constitution is the opposite of the Articles of Confederation; instead of a government with too little power, it becomes a governement with way too much power. I think that to have the government clearly understand the rules and rights of the people, there must be a Bill of Rights they can see anytime to uncloud any confusion.
Ethan- Belle H period 2 -
ReplyDeleteCreating the constitution was a hard process to do, when we were doing it we thought hard so our government wouldn’t corrupt like it did before. We made sure we distributed the power and rights equally so we could have a smooth and successful government. There are some benefits to having a bill of rights, but there are more down falls to that. It will limit peoples power even more, and people will get the impression that the rights that are listen on the bill are the only ones we need, which is certainly not true. You also mention abuse of power; with the constitution we have made sure that won’t happen by putting checks and balances on each branch of the government. Ratifying the Constitution as is a smart thing to do because it will put our Nation on the road to success.
Leia-Belle H. period 2“
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I think we should not ratify the Constitution because the government is going to have too much power and this will result in another King.” I completely disagree with this statement because while we were making the constitution we were certain that no group could gain too much power and repeat the past. We have all the groups checking in on each other restricting their powers to prevent corruption. The constitution that we have made is sure to protect your rights and making keep your freedom. The Constitution needs to be ratified soon because we need to get our government all fixed up so we can become as strong as can be.
Brendan Pd.2/George Clinton
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to George Washington/Claire p.2
You stated that "we will have a government who will make the best decisions for the country as a whole." How can you be sure? History has clearly shown that if we have a complete trust in our authority, corruption will overpower it. Ratifying the Constitution would not threaten the chance of this country avoiding a tyranny because the entire point of adding a bill of rights is avoiding tyranny. Haste makes waste, and adding a bill of rights won't take forever. In conslusion, it is definetly better to do everything possible to strengthen the security of the government and the people, instead of rushing to get a Constitution approved ASAP.
Nick per. 2
ReplyDeleterebuttal to Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton said that the current constitution does a good enough job of protecting people's rights.Well I say that is incorrect. How can the constitution protect people's rights if it doesn't even list what they are. For the sake of argument lets say that someone is aprehended. They will be questioned for their crime and if they were to say,with the current constitution, "I have the right to remain silent" the questioners could say that they don't. That is why this constitution does not do a good job of protecting people's rights.
Virginie/George Mason rebuttal to Brendan/John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou said that the national government will use their power for trade and defense, but how do you know? The bill of rights is there because people in the national government could use their abuse their power and use their power on things besides trade and defense. You also mention that it won’t turn into a dictatorship thanks to the system of checks and balances, but the three houses could pass an agreement to stop using the system of checks and balances and let each other abuse their power. The bill of rights would be there if the branches are being unfair and not using their power properly, which could very easily happen.
Virginie/George Mason rebuttal to Claire/George Washington
ReplyDeleteYou mention that a bill of rights would limit the government’s power, but I disagree. A bill of rights would protect people if the government becomes too strong, which shouldn’t happen. If it does, the bill of rights will only limit the government’s power if it is being unfair, but not until then. It is also more important to have safe people than a strong government, so a bill of rights should be included.
Elbridge Gerry
ReplyDeleteSarah Pd. 4
James Madison, you said that the powers of the government were limited to begin with and by having the bill of rights it would almost be saying that the people could only expect protection of the rights actually listed. I believe that this statement is illegitimate. That is because the bill of rights will list some of the rights but they are just rules to set. After they make the bill of rights they will probably expect more protection after the document is ratified. Also any branch could get too much power just by having more people in the branch. The national government would also have to much power if the Constitution is ratified.
Melnchton Smith
ReplyDeleteCaroline Pd. 4
George Washington made several mistakes regarding his beliefs. It is true that a stronger government is necessary, however not as strong as the constitution lays it out. The government hs too little boundaries on what they can and cannot do- just because there is a system of checks and balances doesn’t mean the government as a whole can’t band together against the country. Also, there are too many loopholes available to the government if the rights of the people are not very specifically laid out. One thing is for certain- the Constitution must have a bill of rights.
Julia/ Alexander Hamilton/ rebuttal to Caitlyn/ Melanchthon Smith
ReplyDeleteYou say that the President will have too much power. Yes he will have power but if he gets out of control, they can impeach him. In the Constitution, there are the five principles. One is called Limited Government. It states that the government is not all powerful but can only do what people can say it can do. I don’t think Congress can become that powerful if the people have a say in it. Lastly, we don’t need the bill of rights if we have the Constitution. The powers of the government are limited.
Nick, we don't need to list rights we are naturally entitled to. The base of the country is freedom and every right you can think of isn't a privelige, we are entitled to them naturally. So it is unecessary, and endangering, to list the rights. Freedom doesn't need to be documented when it already exists. Sanjay Period 4
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Period 4: Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteTo John Jay
Just because it is the national government’s job to protect our rights, does not mean that it will happen. There will be many instances where the national government overlooks what is best for the people in the future, and they will fail to protect their rights properly. A bill of rights could solve this issue by stating the specific matters in which American’s rights should be protected. This will allow the government to have the guidelines to insuring a better future for the people.
The system of checks and balances is inefficient because branches of government are checking on each other, and because there is no higher authority than the government, it means that together, they have the power to take advantage of the people. If the Constitution is ratified without a bill of rights, than the people of America are not properly protected, and the government can easily abuse their power.
Virginie/George Mason rebuttal to Jack/John Jay
ReplyDeleteThe people’s rights may be protected with the Constitution, but I think a bill of rights is a still a good thing to add. People who work in the government may still find a way to become tyrannical without disobeying the Constitution and a bill of rights would make people feel safer and it is a good thing to have added to the Constitution just in case the government becomes to strong or makes people feel less free than before.
Nick C per. 2 rebuttal 2
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington said that the government's power would be limited. That the only things that they can do is control trade currency and defense. But those three things, aside from the rights of the people, are the three most important things that the government can control. That is why George Washington is wrong. That the government DOES have too much power
Alex Kay pd 1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to joey pd 2 / James Madison
ReplyDeleteThe bill of rights really makes sure that the goernment doesn't turn into a tyranny. The bill of rights allows the Parliment to have a say the comnstitution doesn't included that. The Parliment had to approve everything. Their are more people having to agree on a problem that just one. It states the rights the citizens have to get them out of trouble. The Constitution doesn't have a list of rights. Citizens will get in trouble and they wouldn't now why because theirs nothing written down about it. The bill of rights also will maintain the army which the constitution doesn't do.
Kelly O 9/Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Belle H/James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou stated in you argument that we don’t need a bill of rights because the government will protect our natural rights without becoming a tyranny. Along with this there is no guarantee that our rights will be preserved. Without clearly stating the natural rights of each citizen in this nation there is no guarantees to anyone that the things they should have a right to won’t be taken away. In this constitution we need to mark clear boundaries which will each have a right to. Without the bill of rights things that people deserve such as life and property could easily be taken away without question. Therefore we need a bill of rights in order to complete this document.
Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry Lee / Leia responds to Federalist George Washington/Will
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington states that we will have a strong executive branch in the national government. Having a strong executive branch would be like when there was a monarch and a King. We just went through a very long revolution and no one wants to go back to having a King. Also George thinks that we don’t need a bill of rights. The bill of rights would secure our freedom and not let the government take away any of our rights. In conclusion we do not need a strong national government and we should have a bill of rights.
Brad D/ George Mason rebuttal Elizabeth/ George Washington Per-9
ReplyDeleteA strong executive branch is not necessary. It is not necessary because the executive branch would become a monarchy. If the executive branch became a monarchy it would not be good because there would be one king. People wouldn’t be able to vote for their leader, so civilization would not run smoothly because some people would not accept their leader. Another bad thing is people wouldn’t have a say in things. If people don’t have a say in things, no one could have a opinion about something they have to fix in their community.
Sarah pd. 9 rebuttal to Chris pd. 1/John Jay
ReplyDeleteJohn Jay states that ‘If we have such a miniature republic we will be destroyed’. I believe that is utterly untrue. Say the situation was reversed and we had only one large government, if a neighboring country declared war, we wouldn’t have all of our army in one place. We would have to send out soldiers around our country to rally up more soldiers, thus taking way too long and our country being destroyed in that process. Also, you say that ‘our national government would be very good at protecting our rights because its their job.’ They would not protect our rights because they don’t know what are rights are. And, neither do we, which is why we need to write them down, creating a bill of rights. I hope you will reconsider to join the Anti-Federalists.
To James Madison, each member of this new democratic society is guaranteed the right to have a say in what they believe is right for the government. In your argument you didn’t mention the fact that people that are affected by all this have the right to stand up for themselves. You even talk about power throughout the executive branch and how they will help the nation, yet they are obviously taking a step towards tyranny. Then you say that they will have the power to enforce laws and even mention that they won’t get too powerful. The fact that they can enforce laws is a huge responsibility, and they are not really equally divided in power throughout each of the three branches. This is because you only mention the executive branch and don’t even say anything else about any of the other 2 branches. This shows you believe that the executive branch is the strongest part of the government over the others.
ReplyDelete-Harry B Per 6, Rebuttal 1
Caroline M/George Mason rebuttal to Sam/George Washington
ReplyDeleteYou had stated that the national government needs a lot more power than it did when we had the Articles of Confederation, but really it does not need that much power. The national government would have too much power over people, yet the Constitution states “We the people…” It would have too much power that is given by the Constitution if ratified. A bill of rights would supply Americans their rights when facing the national or federal government, but seeing as there is none, the people would not know what rights they have, and no one could tell them their rights without a written documents of them. We do not know if a system of checks and balances would work, the separate groups of government could choose not to check on one another making the system useless to even has in the Constitution. The Constitution should not be ratified.
Caitlyn T, period 2 (Melanchthon Smith) rebuttal to Sara H, period 1 (Alexander Hamilton)
ReplyDeleteIn your argument you declared the Constitution able to restrain the Congress and command the nation effectively, but is it too effective? I believe the Constitution takes over too much of the people's natural rights, and we cannot be sure our rights are understood without a bill of rights to back them up. Also, the checks and balances system is fine if one branch becomes corrupt, but what if all three take over? Overall, I believe the Constitution gives the Congress too much control and leaves too few rights for the people.
To Elizabeth p.4
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington, As George Mason an Anti-Federalist I believe that our government should not have an Executive branch! If we do have an Executive branch then, that branch may soon over power the other branches and become a monarchy. I know that Americans certainly do not want another monarch because they all have experienced with England the negative effects of a monarchy form of government. England’s king had abused his power and turned all of his colonies against him. Americans do not want a controlling, selfish leader again. Also there is a chance that the system of checks and balances may fail because branches could always go behind other branches backs. For example if the executive branch secretly plans to take control of our wonderful and they lie to the other branches about what they are really doing. An Executive branch is just too risky as part of our government.
By,
Sarah M p.1
To Jack p.9
Alexander Hamilton I, George Mason believe that the constitution should be strictly for the government to follow. It should be a guide to our struggling government and help set new laws for its people. I believe that it should not include the rights for our citizens and explain to them what they can and can not do in this country. Everyone is supposed to have natural rights. America is the land of the free. Our citizens will react as if the framers are the new Parliament and perhaps the commander of the army George Washington as the new King of America. It would be the same miserable decade all over again. No one wants that to happen ever again. The Legislative branch of our government will in charged of creating new laws and will base the laws on the current issues in society.
By,
Sarah M p.1
To Dave p.6
John Jay I, George Mason am confused about your beliefs about the constitution being ratified. You stated that the Bill of Rights would only give the people protection and therefore is unnecessary. I strongly believe the whole purpose of a government is to create laws to protect the people being ruled. Without the Bill of Rights included in your idea of our new government then Americans will suffer because they will not be protected against the powers of the government and the people will no longer feel safe in their home country. The government could also commit the crime habeas corpus. Eventually a riot will break out between the government and the people being ruled. In England’s Magana Carta it states that a government is a contrast between the ruler and the people being ruled. You had also stated that the Constitution doesn’t give the government too much power. The whole point of why you federalist wrote the constitution was to grant the central government more power. Once again I believe that the Constitution being ratified will greatly affect the people, and the future in a negative way.
By,
Sarah M p.1
Gabby E/Patrick Henry rebuttal to Rebecca/John Jay
ReplyDeleteJohn Jay, you say in your argument that Anti Federalists believe that the rights of citizens are protected on a bill. As an Anti Federalist, the bill of rights would give the independent citizens immunity for their rights. You are making it sound like the bill of rights is just useless if we have the Constitution. Just in case they would like to be sure of their rights, they would be able to look at the bill of rights. They should be aware of what rights they have when they are living under the government. All the citizens really want is to live in freedom. They like to know that they have a say in their rights, not just to put it all in the hands of the government. So when you said it was false that the Anti Federalists trust the rights of citizens to be protected on a bill, think of the citizens and the rights they deserve not that the government has for them. They must feel protected by a bill of rights. Not just by the Constitution.
kara- Erica
ReplyDeleteErica, you seemed to be focused in being an equal society. i have nothing wrong with that but there are other laws that are important. that is why we need a Bill Of Rights! because we aren't just focused on that one issue. Having a bill of rights will enforce the rules. Also you sounded like you were making everything so detailed when if we have a bill of rights it makes life so much easier because we just say this is what we want and this is how we enforce it instead of keeping it extremely detailed and confusing.
Kara-Megan- George Washington
ReplyDeleteMegan, you said you don't want the government gaining too much power but if we add a bill of rights then the rules will be enforced more because the government will know exactly what we want. Also the government can only do what the citizens want them to because if we add a bill of rights then they will have more rules to follow so they will be more in line.
Chris Gingrich
ReplyDeletePd.4
Anti-Federalist
Rebuttal to Chris D/ Federalist
In your statement you say” that there needs to be a strong executive branch in the government, so it will be able to fulfill all of its duties that it is responsible for.” Then you also state that “The government only has limited powers, so the use of a bill of rights is not necessary.” If the government has “limited powers” then why are you saying that the executive branch needs to be strong but you failed to mention the other branches. And there is no government that is “tyranny-proof,” every government can be corrupted.
Rebuttal to A.J. Period 6/John Jay
ReplyDeleteJohn, you say that the last thing America needs is a bunch of small republics who you predict will get “taken down” because they would be dominated by selfish groups. Who is to say that the Constitution’s government won’t end up the same way, it is a republic after all. Yet how does that relate at all to a bill of rights? I cannot determine which side of the argument, Federalist or Anti-Federalist, you are arguing because you start out saying that there should not be any small republics, the state governments, and then you turn around and say that the constitution would not override them because of the system of checks and balances. Where is this all coming from? Besides that you say that the government would be able to protect the rights of the people by interpreting the phrase “natural rights”. They will have no evidence during a court case to say that the right was written down to show that it was in fact a right. No decision will ever be unanimous, and the country will be angered at the uncertainty of your decisions. A bill of rights would not hurt the constitution so you should not sign the Constitution until it has one.
Kyle period 4
Nicole-George Clinton Rebuttal to Elizabeth-George Washington
ReplyDeleteYou stated that you wouldn’t want a repeat of what the Articles of Confederation did but if we added a bi of rights there still wouldn’t be a weak national government but there would just be guidelines for the government to follow so that absolutely no one could gain total power. Also you said that the government would be more stable and organized but if the government had guidelines with specific jobs for everyone in power than the government would be more stable and no one could gain all the power. And even if there were different jobs for each branch the government would still be able to tax the people to support the army.
Nicole- George Clinton Rebuttal to Megan – George Washington
ReplyDeleteIn your statement you said that each position in the government will have checks and balances and you said that there would be boundaries as well. But in the constitution it states that the president can do whatever is necessary which is very vague and that gives the president too much power and he could become tyrannical because he could do almost anything. There are no clear guidelines for the government in the Constitution so the bill of rights would assure that the government knows their boundaries. In addition you said that no one could gain power but the government has the power to do anything to help the people and that gives the government no strict guidelines. And the bill of rights gives each branch of government and anyone in power boundaries to which they need to follow, which would be much more detailed.
Nicole-George Clinton Rebuttal to Belle- James Madison
ReplyDeleteYou said that we need a strong national government but we don’t want the government to be all-powerful and rule like King George III. We don’t want the government to become all-powerful and tyrannical. So if we added and bill of rights there would still be a strong national government but there would be more strict guidelines and more boundaries to divide the power. Also you said that there would be a very strong Executive branch but if that branch was so much stronger than the others it could become more powerful than the other branches and it would become a monarch. And you said that we don’t want to repeat a weak national government but adding a bill of rights would not make the government weak it would just give each part of the government specific job and more guidelines.
Brad d/ George Mason rebuttal Maddie/ James Madison Per-9
ReplyDeleteA bill of rights is necessary to the Constitution. It is necessary because it protects people form the national government. You need a bill of rights because we need a safe, fair country, our people absolutely must be supported by a bill of rights. It should be supported because the government will have limits on how fully they can control the people. Also the people will be safe. A bill of rights is extremely essential to the Constitution.
Kara-Claire James Madison
ReplyDeleteClaire, As the citizens we don't want tyranny that is EXACTLY why we need a bill of rights. Because the bill of rights states what we want and how we want it enforced so with a bill of rights there will be a less chance of tyranny. This is because the bill of rights provides the laws that the whole government has to follow so no one can get too powerful.
Brad D/ George Mason rebuttal David/ George Washington Per-9
ReplyDeleteYou said that the Constitution is a good idea for America because it will allow one specific government to protect America. That is not true, it will turn into a monarchy and a tyranny. America will fall apart if there is a tyranny. The tyranny will make America enslaved. America won’t be free anymore. It would not be good if there was a tyranny in America.
Brendan Pd.2/George Clinton
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to Rebecca Pd.2/John jay
The rights of the citizens do require a bill of rights to be completely secure. Although the preamble describes what the government can and cannot do, it is necessary to take every single security step possible in order to protect the rights of the people. Having a bill of rights would give the people something written to use in any case that their rights are threatened by any opposing force. Using the bill would be much more effective because the answer is an answer that no one can argue against. In the Constitution, the rights of the people must be interpreted, and the government could use that weakness of the Constitution as a tool for manipulation.
Chris Gingrich
ReplyDeletePd.4
Anti-Federalist
Rebuttal to Ben Pd.4/ Federalist
In your statement you act like there is no one that has an evil heart and that there is no one who would take advantage of the system. You think that every person would do his job to his very best and never do anything bad. We don’t want to change the constitution; we only want to propose a bill of rights to protect the people’s rights. Because eventually a person will attempt to take control and attempt to seize power. AND what happens if he succeeds then what, he’ll be able to control the government and you might as well say the country and everything in it like the people. Unless we get a bill of rights we won’t be able have our rights protected.
Alex Kay pd 1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Jake pd 1/ John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou stated that the government would be strong but the bill of rights would increase the government strength. The Parliament has to agree the laws that want to be passed. This makes sure that the government doesn't enforce any laws that don't seem fair to the citizens. The constitution also does nothing with maintaining the army which the bill of rights does. It also lists the rights that citizens have. I think this is a good thing because they would now what their allowed to do and what their not. If this wasn't in to bill of rights many people would get in trouble. It also good to have a harsh punishment because then they wouldn't run around braking laws and they would now what will happen to them.
Gabby E/Patrick Henry rebuttal to Claire/George Washington
ReplyDeleteAs an Anti Federalist, I disagree with your argument. As you said in your argument, you mentioned that the system of checks and balances would make sure that no one would have too much power. You can’t be so sure that this is true. The citizens need a bill of rights along with the Constitution so they know that their rights are protected and that they are protected. The government has so much power, they can overrule citizens if they choose to. The bill of rights at least can protect the rights that the citizens have. With a bill of rights, the citizens can be assured that the government can’t have too much power. But without the bill of rights it’s just the government deciding on everything. This can soon lead up too them containing too much power. Where I believe your wrong is that you don’t know that a system of checks and balances is going to make sure peace stays within the government. You don’t know what could happen which is why a bill of rights would be necessary in this situation.
Chris Gingrich
ReplyDeletePd.4
Anti-Federalist
Rebuttal to Dave Pd.6/ Federalist
That is exactly why we need a bill of rights, to give the people their rights. In the same way, the checks and balances thing could be very easy to corrupt all you have to do is get someone to say that the power is not being abused when really they could be planning to overthrow the government. If they were successful with their plan then what would you do? The people would become slaves like they were when we fought with England. We broke away from England to have a government not ruled by a tyrant and become a free country. Don’t sign the constitution.
Alex Kay pd 1/ Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Chris pd 1/ John jay
ReplyDeleteYou stated that if the constitution would not be Ratified are government would be destroyed by a small republic. The bill of rights protects against tyranny which is what you said would happen if the constitution was not to be Ratified. The bill of rights of rights gives you more benefits. It has a lists of rights that citizens have which is good because they punishment is harsh. I think it better that way they won't break the law because they now what will happen to them and they would have a list of the thing they can and cannot do. The bill of rights also maintains the army which the constitution doesn't do.
Anti-Federalist michael/Patrick Henry Lee against Federalist chris/John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou say that the government should have the power. All Federalists do but what about about the people of the united states? The government is being kept in "check" with a system of "checks and balances" but the government only checks and balances what the choose to. We are giving the government too much power with this constitution without balancing out the governments power through the citizens. If this Constitution is passed then all americans will be slaves to an even greater power hungy government before.
To Jack Pd.4 From Katie Pd.4
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with your argument. You stated that there is no proof that there is a need for a bill of rights. Well look at the English government for example, the government officials did not act as if they were equal to the citizens. A bill of rights will state fully and clearly what every persons rights are. Also everyone should know what there rights are so they can use them whenever the are needed. So a bill of rights is necessary.
Gabby E/Patrick Henry rebuttal to Belle/James Madison
ReplyDeleteI understand that you think that the Constitution will not make the government become a tyranny. But you don’t know for sure that just because the government protects citizens and their rights means that it won’t become a tyranny. I think the government will have too much power and it will eventually become a monarchy. And this isn’t right for the citizens. Ratifying the Constitution will just give the government more and more power. But with a bill of rights, that can be stopped. It will give the citizens more rights as well making them have some power so it’s not all on the government. And just because the Articles of Confederation failed because the government had no power at all, doesn’t mean the Constitution should be approved giving it more power than ever. It should be evened out with a bill of rights.
Edwin Gee/Melanchthon Smith to Sean/George Washington
ReplyDeleteEvery one of you federalists are saying that there are enough limitations on the government to ensure that the state governments will be protected. Yet you always avoid the question by not saying specifically what the national government will do for these state governments. Also, you’re not listing what other powers the branches will have specifically, and any politician can take advantage of this. You are just generally speaking about trade, currency, and defense. But are you going to do anything else for the people. In this constitution, you never listed the rights of the people or what you will do to help them. You just talk about power and how limited it is. The Bill of Rights will protect the people, which is what we fought for in the first place, not power.
Elbridge Gerry
ReplyDeleteSarah Pd. 4
Rebuttal to John Jay
John Jay, you said that the people expect most, if not all, of their rights would be protected by the government. The words expect is the key word in this statement. The people would expect all of their rights to be protected. However what if the government does not live up to that and all of their rights are not protected? Then the government would be in a horrible position. We would never want to take a risk with a government that has so much power. This would make the people very upset with them and the whole country would go downhill from there.
To John Jay, I believe that your supporting statement of your speech is incorrect. This is because you mention that the power of the government is limited. You don’t realize that this government runs an army, and is in charge of your taxes. You even say that the purpose of the government is to protect our rights, but you don’t say how they can do this or who can do it out of the 3 branches. Plus, you said the same thing twice in different words, about the government protecting our rights. In my opinion, I agree, but it seems as though you don’t care about the subject, due to the fact that you don’t explain yourself.
ReplyDeleteHarry Per 6, Rebuttal 2
Nick period 4 (second rebuttle) to Melancton Smith, Anti Federalist (Edwin, Pd 2)
ReplyDeleteThere is already reasons how the government can not become way to powerful and become tyrant. A bill of rights will only show certain rights making the people believe that they only have the rules listed.
To George Washington, I disagree to the fact that you believe the Constitution is fine the way it is. My reason is because I believe the Constitution doesn’t know where to end when it comes to giving power. An example of this would be that the Constitution gives the government too much credit, and gives them the power they do not deserve. The Constitution even gave them the power to, one, run an army, two, enforce laws, and three, have power over taxes. You may think that this is “Limited” power, but in my humble opinion, this is tyranny. Then you say that your ideas would be so much more organized, yet you must have not read close enough, this is tyranny!
ReplyDeleteHarry Per. 6, Rebuttal 3
James Madison (Allison L.) rebuttal to George Mason (Caroline M.)
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the people will have questions about their freedom and rights, but we do not need a bill of rights to show them. The bill of rights will only cause too much limitations of the government, and then the government will not be able to work as effectively as they could without a bill of rights. The people do not need a bill of rights to protect their rights and freedom. You said that if the government will turn into a tyranny because the government will have too much power. But as I explained before, there will be checks and balances and the separation of powers. Both systems will work efficiently and they will make sure that the government won’t have too much power. The government won’t have enough power to turn into a monarchy because the other parts of the government will stop them from trying to. The other parts of the government have the power to stop each other from causing a tyranny. Also, the separation of powers will evenly distribute the power so that no parts of the government can overrule each other or cause a tyranny. The Constitution has the right amount of protection and rights and does not need a bill of rights.
Thomas pd 1/ agaist Brendan PD 2
ReplyDeleteBrendan if there is a bill of rights that would limit the peoples rights that they have. If we don’t do a bill of rights it will allow the people to have unlimited rights and would show that the government is built for the people and that they have all rights they want if there was a bill of rights it would limit their possibilities of rights.
Thomas pd 1/ Austin pd 1
ReplyDeleteAustin it is true that the executive branch has a lot of power. But it does not have all of the power and the other branches if the think it is getting to powerful can check and decrease and calm that branch down. With the ability to check on the branches there is slim to no chance of tyranny.
James Madison (Allison L. Per. 6) rebuttal to Nick C. (Per. 2)
ReplyDeleteWhen you said that George Washington stated that the government’s power would be limited, it was true. The government can control trade, currency and defense which is very important. But the government has checks and separation of powers, which will prevent the government from becoming overpowered. The checks will make it so the government can stop each other from violating any rights and so it will not turn into a tyranny. Also, the government has the separation of powers. This system will divide the power equally so that one part of the government won’t have too much power and turn into a monarchy. The government doesn’t need a bill of rights because that will limit the powers of the government too much, and the government will not be as effective as it could be without the bill of rights. The government will not turn into a tyranny and the Constitution needs to be ratified.
Robert period 2, rebuttal to Edwin.
ReplyDeleteYou say that the executive branch will have too much power amongst the other branches. I strongly disagree. Don’t forget that we have a system of checks and balances, and a strong Supreme Court and jury to keep this from happening. That being said, it sounds like you are being a little too dependent on the quote, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” First of all, that is Lord Acton’s opinion, and second of all you really didn’t give too much reasoning behind how it would turn into a monarchy. Therefore, I cannot agree with you on this one. You continue on about how the President will turn into the new King George, but the Constitution has everything balanced, so this would not be the case. The Constitution gives the Congress and Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch, even if it is very ideal for a strong national government.
Robert Period 4, rebuttal to Harry.
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton, as a Federalist, object to what you think of a Constitution without a Bill of rights. You say that the Constitution gives the national government too much power. It really doesn’t give it too much power, it gives it just enough power. Experience with the Articles of Confederation has shown that without a strong national government, things would turn into a disaster. Also, the national government’s powers are limited to tasks that face the whole nation, such as trade, currency and defense. So we need a strong national government anyway, but its not like we’re giving it so much power that the other types of governments feel weak. We have a strong Supreme Court and Congress to keep every branch balanced and stable. Thus, with the Constitution we keep powers from corrupting, and the Bill of rights really won’t help us out. In fact, it could even make more mistakes in our government. You really didn’t give a whole lot of reasoning to why the Bill of rights will help us, so I cannot agree here as well. (Rebuttal to Harry)
Robert Period 4 Rebuttal to Caroline M.
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton, disagree with your reasoning to being an Anti-Federalist. First off, you say that the national government has too much power amongst the states and should be distributed more equally. I agree that it would have a large amount of power, but without the national government a little more powerful than it is, things could turn into a disaster. Don’t forget our tough experiences with The Articles of Confederation. Do you remember why they failed? Because the national government didn’t have enough power. Its power may seem a little unfair, but the national governments powers are limited to tasks that face the whole nation. That being said, a strong national government is needed for these important issues, so monarchy will not be a problem if that is what you think. It’s not like we’re giving the national government so much power that all of the other types of government will feel weak. (rebuttal to Caroline m)
To Kristen Pd.6 From Katie Pd.4
ReplyDeleteI simply don't understand your argument. Of course the people expect al of their rights to be protected. That is one of the reasons we should have a bill of rights, so that everyone knows their rights are protected. Also people want to know what isn't a right. Plus a bill of rights can be changed over time if need be. Thus why a bill of rights is and necessary addition to our government.
Julia/Alexander Hamilton rebuttal to Sarah/ Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteIn your argument you said you would want one government for each community in America. Do we not have that already? We have a national, state, and local government. Plus, there are checks and balances which mean that each branch is able to check the power of the other two branches. Because of this, how would the executive branch have more power? The Constitution does not give more rights to the executive branch. And it could not become a monarch also because of the checks and balances.
To Shannon Pd. 9 From Katie Pd. 4
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your argument. You say that for sure the government will never have too much power. How do you know? Honestly there is no way of knowing. That is why we should have a bill of rights, just to insure that the government won't have too much power. Certain precautions must be made! If don't have any precautions well then we might as well hold a target on our chests and scream "Disaster come get me!" because it will find us.
Julia/ Alexander Hamilton rebuttal to Leia/ Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the powers of the government will result in another king. This is not true if you have checks and balances placed on the government. So each branch of the government is able to check the power of the other two branches. Any branch is able to use checks and balances. Also the government can’t just decide to take away our freedom. It states it in the constitution that the government is not all powerful but can do what people say it can do.
While a bill of rights seems like a good idea, do you really think it is possible to include all rights that should be given to the people? These rights will change over time and adding them to the constitution now could limit rights in the future. We need to make sure that the document is flexible for our country. It has to be able to change with us. The constitution stops anybody abusing their powers by a system of checks and balances. We don’t need a bill of rights to protect our rights. The constitution does that by having three branches of government: legislative, judicial and executive.
ReplyDeleteSean Period 1
Austin Hatch period 1 rebuttle to Ben Schuman period 4
ReplyDeleteIn your argument you say that our government will be powerful, but not powerful at the same time, but I think that the power of the government doesn't matter in an argument about a bill of rights, because everyone is going to have a different opinion on the government either way, but I'm sure that everyone wants to be safe and protected, not only by a government that may not care for the people, but for the peoples' feeling of safety and a sheild or guard that will not change with the government, we need a bill of rights.
Kelly O 9/Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Chris pd 1/John Jay
ReplyDeleteYou state in you argument that the Constitution will balance the power between the states and the national government. With a government this large the states should have more individual power so they can decide what it best for their state. With so much power in the national government they will not be able to look out for the common interest for each state as an individual. Since the state governments are diminished with this system it is only a matter of time before they state governments have deteriorated completely. Since this is such a large area of land with such different terrains in each state there is no possible way that the government can do what's best for everyone so the national laws can't always overrule the state laws. Each state should be able to make decisions in what's best for them while there still being a nice balance, and having a government that's too powerful would throw that off balance.
Kelly O period 9/Patrick Henry Lee rebuttal to Maddie Period 1
ReplyDeleteYou say that the constitution gives fair power to each branch. With so much power in the executive branch, not much good will come of that. If the executive branch is so powerful, the one thing that it will lead to is monarchy. That is exactly with England and that's why we had to branch off to form our own country. Giving the executive government to much power bring us back to where we started and what we wanted to change when we branched off from England. When starting our new government we should take into consideration what the faults were in the government that we just decided to break away from.
Brian, Melanchthon Smith/ rebuttal to Sanjay, George Washington
ReplyDeleteI disagree to the statement made by George Washington that stated the government would not become tyrannical but I find that to be absurd. The system of checks and balances looks good on paper but the thought that a leader who is corrupt will willingly step down from power is a ridiculous idea. Especially with the president being the commander in chief of the entire military can order almost anything and become a tyrant with the whole national army on his side. If we are to run a nation free of tyranny, then we need a fail-safe operation to remove a leader from power, an operation that is not included in the current draft of the Constitution.
Brian, Melanchthon Smith/ rebuttal to Stephen, George Washington
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that a bill of rights is unnecessary and will limit our natural rights because they will not be listed. I think this statement highly underestimates the general intelligence of people and their level of competence. There will be rights excluded from the bill because they are assumed to be understood as rights by everyone and don’t require any further explanation, but the rights included will be ones that are conditional or that contain multiple parts that may be confusing or misunderstood and need to be addressed formally. For this reason I believe a bill of rights is necessary if we are to move forward as a nation.
Brian, Melanchthon Smith p.6/ rebuttal to Julia, Alexander Hamilton p.4
ReplyDeleteI agree that the constitution does separate powers equally among the branches, but what was overlooked was the magnitude of the powers that were being distributed. If you were to look at just numbers then you would think the powers of the government were equally distributed but if you take a practical standpoint, Commander-in-Chief of the entire military force is far from equal to power to settle disputes, no matter how big. Some may say that the Legislative branch can check the president’s power, that’s all good and well on paper but when applied to the real world really what is to stop the president from turning the military into his own personal army. If we are to ratify this Constitution the separation of power must be more specific and also take into consideration the magnitude of the power being distributed.
Nick C per. 2 rebuttal 3
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to george washington
George washington said that if one branch of government gets out of line than the other two can check it. Well what if the three heads of the branches come to an agreement and take over the country. The three branches would no longer exist. In their place would be three rulers making the country an oligarchy (a country ruled by at least two people). Eventually one leader would somehow get rid of the other two and take complete control over America making this country a dictatorship. That is why Checks and Balances might not work and the government is too powerful.
Sarah pd. 9 rebuttal to James Madison
ReplyDeleteI am writing a rebuttal to James Madison because of many reasons. One is that he says that a bill of rights is unnecessary. That of course is untrue because we need a bill of rights to protect ourselves against the power of the national government. You also say that any rights you can think of will be protected. But letting that go on is a mistake because people would think of ridiculous things such as saying that it is their right to not pay taxes. Also saying that we don’t need a bill of rights is putting complete trust in our government not to violate our rights, which I believe they will. One again, it is foolish to not have a bill of rights in the Constitution.
John Jay states “The constitution must be ratified due to the fact that the national government must be strong.” True, it must be stronger than it was under the articles of confederation- but it cannot be strong enough to take over and become a tyranny! We had the Revolution to escape the monarchy of the kings. Checks and balances and separation of power are not effective because it is still one central government that can work together for ultimate power, as our individual rights are not well defined and can be violated. The purpose of government is to protect are natural rights. We as Americans therefore cannot jeopardize that in any way.
ReplyDeleteCaroline Pd. 4 Melancthon Smith
Deirdre/George Mason, rebuttal to joey/james madison
ReplyDeleteI disagree about the government having limited power. The federal government has too much power at the expense of the state governments. Sometimes James Madison says that the national law is for all of the people but sometimes it should be decided at the state level instead of the national level.
Deirdre/George Mason,rebuttal to Sean/George Washington
ReplyDeleteI disagree that we don't need a bill of rights. We need a bill of rights because its essential for protecting the indivuals against the national government. I also think the bill of rights is good because it helps the people.