Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Federalist Rebuttals to Anti-Federalist Arguments
The Anti-Federalists have put forward some pretty convincing arguments and the inflential states ofVirginia and New York have yet to vote! Review the Anti-Fedralists' arguments and persuade these states to vote for ratification by formulating three specific counterarguments/rebuttals. Remember to identify yourself as your Federalist persona and your name/period. Please begin each rebuttal by identifying the specific Anti-Federalist argument that you wish to respond to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear George Mason,
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington, have read your statement and disagree that “We need to enclose a Bill of Rights with the constitution because without one the government has no clear limitations and will abuse its power.” We have a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government that assures that no branch of government gets to much power. The president can not make a decision without the congress agreeing. We vote the members of the government in, we choose who will be in the government because we believe they can be trusted. There are already rules put in place to keep the executive branch from getting to much power, so there is no need for a Bill of rights.
-Stephen
p.4
Melanchthon Smith stated that the ratification of the Constitution would grant too much power to the United States Congress, but that is untrue. The Constitution was specifically written with the goal in mind to keep one group or person from obtaining too much power. All decisions made by Congress can be checked by the other branches of government, which is the whole idea behind separation of power and the system of checks and balances. Additionally, there are also separate state governments to make choices pertaining to the residents of their particular state, in order to make decisions on a more local scale than that of the Federal government. Therefore, the Congress only has very little power over individual states.
ReplyDeleteShea pd. 6
Rebuttal One
ReplyDeleteMegan Newhard, Period 2
Rebuttal to Patrick Henry Lee
You say that you do not want the constitution to be ratified because you are afraid of a tyranny, but that is impossible under the new constitution because it has a new system of checks and balances. This new system ensures that one single branch can not become too powerful because if the other branches see one branch becoming powerful they can do something to stop it. You also say we need a bill of rights to protect our freedom but the government can only do what we want them to do. If we notice the president getting overly powerful, we can impeach him, or remove him from office. This is why I think it is perfectly safe to pass the constitution.
Melancton Smith believes that the government will have absolute power, and will corrupt easily. This will be avoided, though, because of the limitations of power in the government and the system of checks and balances. This will also protect from a tyranny. The checks and balances system works extremely well, and there is absolutely no chance that it will give the government absolute power.
ReplyDeleteConor, Pd 2
Melanchthon Smith Pd. 2 claims that if the Constitution is ratified, the executive branch would become too powerful and eventually become a tyranny. This is impossible due to the many checks and balances on of the branches. And the clause is most certainly not too general. And the officials in the executive branch, would be elected by the public, so they won’t take advantage of anything. And the executive ranch really can’t do anything on their own. The legislative and judicial branches would be just as important. And all the future officials disliked England rules just as much as the rest of us. I’m James Madison and I feel the Constitution doesn’t need a bill of rights. –Joey Period 2
ReplyDeleteDear Melanchthon Smith,
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington, have read your statement and disagree that the Constitution should be changed. There is no way that the President will become a dictator if he gains too much power. We have three branches of government that run by a system of checks and balances. This system is what keeps any branch of government from getting to much power. Also the president can’t make a decision without the congress agreeing. In addition you claim that the congress is too powerful and America should be run by the people. Well how does the congress get chosen, WE VOTE for them. The people choose who will have the power in the congress. We have enough rules in place that will keep the government from getting to much power. A bill of rights would take to much power away from the national government. The Constitution should be ratified as it is.
-Stephen
p.4
I, George Washington, completely disagree with the notions that a bill of rights is needed, the government could abuse its power, and that the people wouldn’t be involved, offered by Patrick Henry Lee (Leia), Melancthon Smith (Edwin) and George Mason (Caroline M). Firstly, in our country people are entitled to freedom and naturally have too many rights that you could list in a document. The bill of rights would actually work against the people because it is inevitable that some rights wouldn’t be listed, and why legally list our natural rights if it wouldn’t cover all of them. That way we could lose rights we know we have and are entitled to. We don’t need to refer to a document to know our rights, Patrick Henry Lee. Secondly, there is no denying we need a strong central government. The concern and counter to that idea is that it could become a monarchy, and tyrannical. Precisely why the Constitution includes separation of powers and system of checks and balances that prevents a tyrannical government or monarchy like Melancthon Smith said could happen, and contrary to what George Mason described as not stating the powers of government and its branches. Lastly, Patrick Henry Lee, there would be no discord between the people and the government. Government is a thing of the people, we the people would be represented in government by officials we vote for. Sanjay Period 4
ReplyDeleteJack/John Jay
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
The Anti-Federalists believe that the executive branch would turn into a monarchy if the Constitution is ratified as it is now. However, we have made sure that this is not possible by ensuring a system of checks and balances. Besides, a strong executive branch is necessary for the national government to achieve its goals and fulfill its responsibilities. The national government is also separated into three different branches so the executive branch couldn’t possibly gain too much power. The Constitution gives both the Congress and the Supreme Court powers to insure that the executive branch will not become a monarch. So there is no need to worry about that issue.
In response to Melanchthon Smith, I say your thoughts are well thought out but are untrue. The president will not become like a monarchy or tyranny, he is kept in check with the system of checks and balances. All branches of government are kept in check with that system. Also, the idea of congress is to make it easier for the people to be represented, not to take away their representation in government. Members of congress are elected regularly by the people, so the majority of the people is represented. Finally, a bill of rights is unwanted and un-necessary because if we list certain rights the government will say they are only accountable for the rights that are listed. The people expect all their rights to be protected by the government.
ReplyDeleteKirsten M Period 6,
John Jay, Federalist
Melanchthon Smith (Per. 4) thinks that the government will have too much power and turn into a tyranny. Our country will not turn into a tyranny or a monarchy. The Constitution does not have any loop holes that can cause a tyranny. The Constitution has checks and the separation of powers. The checks will be able to let other parts of the government rule over or “check” what they’re doing. So if one part of the government tried to gain more power or do something that violates the people, another part of the government would be able to stop them from doing so. The separation of powers also divides the power equally so it would not be a tyranny, and their power is equal. If we add a bill of rights, there would be too much limitations and the government would not be as effective. The government would not be able to protect us as well as they could if the bill of rights were added. There are no loop holes in the Constitution, and it is perfect the way it is. It does not need a bill of rights.
ReplyDelete~Allison Lee(Per. 6)
George Clinton expressed the idea that without a bill of rights with specific privileges, it is easier to twist and obscure the implications of the document. A less particular collection of rights does leave more room for interpretation, but it also covers much more ground as far as how the people are protected. With a precise list, there is a greater chance that critical points could be left out, whether unintentionally or purposely. Additionally, a bill of rights is only necessary in a monarchy with a risk of transforming into a tyrannical society, but with the separation of government established by the Constitution, it is not a vital component of the document. The present draft of the Constitution is sufficient without it, and the ratification process should proceed.
ReplyDeleteShea pd. 6
Claire Rothfelder
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
Rebuttal #1
To Melanchton Smith/ Caitlyn Tierney,
I, James Madison, disagree that the president will become a dictator. It is not possible for the President to take over because he does not have enough power to do so. A king and a president are different in many ways. A king has absolute power, but the president does not. The president cannot control certain parts of the government because his power is limited by the system of checks and balances. Also, the president is only in charge of certain parts of running the government because there are three branches of government. He could not become a tyrant-like leader because he has the same amount of power as other people in the government. Therefore, I believe that the president will not become too powerful.
I, John Jay, am replying to Patrick Henry (Nick C) and his statement that says, “One branch might even take control, given enough time.” This statement is impossible to be achieved through the rules our constitution has laid down. The check and balance system was made for that very purpose, so that the branches cannot get too powerful and take control. If the president gains too much control, the Legislative and Judicial branches can impeach him. Also when he states that the government will be too far way for the people to participate can also be fixed. The voting for representatives happens in our own towns, as does the things that directly affect the communities you live in. That is why we should still ratify the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteOlivia LeWarn, Pd 9
Will- George Washington
ReplyDeleteRebuttal #2
I am replying to Michael, Period 1. You said, “The Executive Branch of our government is already too powerful to begin with.” We have a strong executive branch because that means strong leadership. History has shown that the societies and governments that have had strong leadership succeeded. The governments that had faulty leadership, failed. If we don’t have strong leadership, we probably won’t be successful. If we are not successful, the Revolutionary War will have been for nothing. The lives, the weaponry, and most important of all, the money will have been for nothing!
Audrey period 1
ReplyDeleteI, John Jay, a federalist, disagree with Melanchthon Smith and believe strongly that the Constitution should be ratified. Smith is wrong is saying that the president will get too much power. Congress oversees all of the president’s decisions, appointments, and actions to make sure he does not get too powerful. If either one of the other branches decides that the president has become corrupted in any way, then he shall be impeached. Smith is also wrong to say that congress has too much power. This will not happen because the Constitution includes a system of checks and balances which requires that each branch of the government must check up on the other branches to make sure they are doing their job and have not become corrupt. Finally, a bill of rights is not necessary to the Constitution because the restrictions of the government are laid out in the Constitution already, and the restrictions of government and rights of the people are the same thing, so a bill of rights is not needed.
Audrey period 1
ReplyDeleteI, John Jay, a federalist, disagree with George Mason and believe that the Constitution should be ratified. Mason says that a bill of rights is needed to protect the people. The Constitution already lays out the restrictions of government, so there is no reason to include all the rights of the people. Also, there is no way that the executive branch could gain too much power because there is a system of checks and balances the requires the other branches to check up on one another and make sure that they don’t do anything to try to gain more power.
Audrey period 1
ReplyDeleteDear Patrick Henry Lee,
I, John Jay, a federalist, have seen your accusations that the Constitution is not appropriate for governing our country. This is false, though, for many reasons. There is no way the executive branch could get too much power, for the other two branches are required to check up on each other to make sure they don’t become corrupt. Also, a bill of rights is not necessary in the Constitution because the government’s restrictions are defined in it already, and so there is no need to lay out the rights of the people.
George Washington, Cam period. 2. Rebuttal to Patrick Henry
ReplyDeleteI George Washington have read your statement and I have to say, I disagree with you. We have a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government that assures that no branch of government gets to much power; they all have the same amount of power. You Anti-Federalists say that you don’t want the constitution to be ratified because you are dread of a tyranny to occur. A tyranny is almost impossible to happen due all the checks and balances on the branches of government. You state in your statement that we need a bill of rights to protect our freedom, and I think that nonsense, the government can do what we the people want them to do. It’s not their decision its ours. Once again I George Washington do not agree with your statement because the Constitutions does not need a Bill of Rights!
I’m James Madison and I have to disagree with George Clinton Pd. 6. He claims that the national government’s laws are superior to those which belong to the states. This is not true, the states will still have just as much power that they do right now. It’s just that right now, there is no way of collecting taxes or controlling an army. This is a terrible thing. We are a nation as one. By having only state power, it is more like each state is a separate country. So in order to unite each state to become one, we need a national government. Think about it, what is another country is ready to attack. In order to fight back we need an army which consists of people from every state. If only one state decides to go to war, then surely we will fall and become slaves of the enemy. And the executive branch can’t become too powerful because of our system of checks and balances.-Joey Period 2
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith, I George Washington, have read your statement. I have to disagree with you that our government could become a tyranny. It won’t become a tyranny since we would have a system of checks and balances which puts many limitations on the government. Also, having a Bill of Rights is not a smart idea because the colonists might be confused by it. They might start believing that we will only protect them in the certain areas listed on the document. Experience has shown that having a strong national government can deal with many problems such as trade, currency, and defense, so the government will have a large control over important topics like those listed.
ReplyDeleteSophia; Period 1
Patrick Henry Lee, I George Washington, have read you argument. Small republics actually have not worked. Throughout history small republics have been destroyed by selfish groups of people. A large republic would make it more difficult for those problems to occur. Also, the general welfare article is needed if the government is going to do its job and the tasks that it is responsible for. The government does have a little more power than it did before, but it isn’t going to become a tyranny because of the system of checks and balances, which limits a lot of the things the government has control over.
ReplyDeleteSophia; Period 1
George Mason, I disagree with you when say that we should have a bill of rights. The bill of rights itself is almost too specific because they colonists may feel that the government will only protect them from a certain threat if it is written on the bill of rights. Also, the powers of the government are separated into 3 braches. Each branch can check the power of the others. That way the government can’t become a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington
Sophia; Period 1
Jake k/John Jay period 9 rebuttal to Melanchthon Smith per 2
ReplyDeleteAs I read Melanchthon Smith’s article I found many places where he could have been poorly informed about our newly constructed Constitution. Firstly, the executive branch cannot become a tyranny, because the people vote for the countries primary leader, unlike a king who is born into power. Secondly, if the president is not protecting our rights the people have the power to bring him to an impeachment trial and then if the trial is successful we can remove the politician from office. Absolute power is defined as when one person or group has complete control over all people, and “We the People”, the first three words of the Constitution’s preamble contradict that, because these words mean that the people have the power and we are the really leaders of our country. Finally, as I finish my rebuttal I must say that every problem you for see happening is impossible, because with three branches no one can obtain Absolute power.
Jake k/ John Jay period 9 rebuttal to Patrick Henry Lee per 9
ReplyDeleteWell, Patrick Henry Lee, just think about how awful America was during the Articles of Confederation. It was every man for themself and if we were challenged to a war we would have no way of organizing an army, and our lives again would be in peril. As I comment on the statement you made about how many flaws are in the Constitution. You first have to think no strong central government is born in one day you have to give it time to grow and learn from its mistakes like anything else. So even though flawed I believe that this new style of government can make us the strongest most organized government in the world. The reasons you and your followers should ratify the Constitution is because a tyranny, unlike what you think, has a very low chance of reoccurring because the people vote and obtain the power not the other way around. Also with our system of checks no branch can overpower the other due to the new impeachment policy.
Julia period 1
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington believe that we should ratify the Constitution. The citizens of the USA know the rights that they have, and they are all equal as well. No branches have too much power either. There are a series of checks and balances that can they make sure that the Executive branch does not get too much power. If the Executive branch does get too much power we still have the power to impeach the president and the vice president takes office. I don’t believe that we need to have a bill of rights and that we should just ratify the constitution.
Melanchthon Smith (Pd. 2) stated that the president would become too powerful with the rules of the Constitution. With the Constitution the president cannot become too powerful at all. There are certain checks and balances that limit his power, along with the other branches of government. The president cannot become a tyrant because almost every move he makes must be either approved or disapproved by Congress. If the president ignores these simple rules the Congress may also impeach him or remove him from office. These will make sure that no president can become too powerful.
ReplyDeleteSara H. Pd. 1
Rebuttal to Leia pd.9/ Patrick Henrey Lee
ReplyDeletePatrick states that the national government will abuse their power like King George, but I'm afraid he's wrong. The government is divided into three branchs with all the power spilt up. They also will be doing checks and balances on eachother to make sure they don't abuse their power, if they do the other branches impeach the politician from office. He also states that the national government is to far away, well Patrick that is why their are state government and local government to help act quickly to calm thinks down. Only major issues are handled by the national government. There is also no need for a bill of rights due to the fact that the Constitution already states all the rights of the people.
Jake Pd.1
Claire L. / George Washington rebuttal to Kelly /George Mason
ReplyDeleteIt was stated in the Constitution that the government would have checks and balances to keep one group from getting too much power. You said the executive branch will reserve too much power and therefore we will become a tyranny. We have made specific rules and regulations to keep that from happening. For example, Congress can create a law, and the President can veto this law, but Congress can overrule the veto with a 2/3 majority. You also stated when we were under England’s rule we were taxed without representation and you hinted this would happen again. We have the Great Compromise stating all the states will have two senators so we won’t have the same problem when we were ruled by England. The Constitution will help this country become successful and we will prosper without needing a bill of rights.
John Jay says:
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith/Caitlyn,
In argument to your statement that the Congress will become to powerful, we have carefully set up a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has its own job and can not gain anymore power than the other. You are worried that the central government will gain too much power, which I can understand. We have a long history of an all powerful monarch. However, more recently we have experienced a central government with little to no power. When the Confederation was in action the Congress had no power at all, leaving us as an unstructured society, unable to set down basic laws and lay down taxes. The Constitution allows us to vote for the Congressmen we want and keep society in tact. Allowing America to be a people run society. Although it’s important for us to have a say, we still need a leader. Before, our Country didn’t even go to war together. Having a strong Congress will not result in tyranny but a successful country for generations.
-Rebecca period 2
Dear George Mason,
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the Constitution should be ratified after a bill of rights is put in and you state that the government is a lot stronger then it was before. You also state that the only person in power is the President and that is very similar to having a king. But that is worng. The President is not the only person in power because the government can stop him from doing many things. But most of all they can impeach him. Also you state that the government is stronger than it ever was before. I George Washington think that it will not be a problem because the Constitution already limits the government to what they can use their powers for. That is why I don't think that we need a bill of rights and we should ratify the Constitution how it is.
Sean Pd 2
Dear Melanchthon Smith/Caitlyn Tierney,
ReplyDeleteMy name is James Madison, and I strongly disagree with your point of view. To begin with, you do not know whether the president will abuse his power or not, and even if the president would become a dictator if he could, we have come up with a very stable government and there is no way that one person or section of the government could come up with to much power and take over. Each of the three branches have limited power and the Congress and Supreme Court check periodically on the president and the three branches making sure that everyone is doing exactly what they should be doing. Also, Congress does not have a ton of power, they can only suggest laws that don’t have to be approved. They can’t take over if they can’t create all of the laws without any help from the other branches. Lastly, the lack of the bill of rights is not a problem. The government has limited power, and the bill of rights states what the rights of the people are. However, the government doesn’t have the power to violate the bill of rights, so there is no reason to have a bill of rights.
Signed,
James Madison/Julia C
Period 2
George Mason/Virginie:
ReplyDeleteThere is more power within the hands of the government now than there was with the Articles of Confederation, but the Articles of Confederation failed because the government didn’t have enough power. Also, the president isn’t like a king because the King of England had all of the power. The president only has the power to lead the army/navy, suggest laws, and can appoint certain people in the government, which makes him much less than a king. The English Bill of Rights was to protect them from giving the King too much power, but there are already ways to make sure that the government can’t take over and have all of the power over the people. Each individual branch has the power only to do certain things, and certain parts of the government check on other parts periodically to prevent anyone from getting to much power, causing a tyranny. There is no need to have a bill of rights because it isn’t possible for someone to gain too much power.
-James Madison/Julia C
Period 2
John Jay says:(sorry if this got posted twice)
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith/Caitlyn,
In argument to your statement that the Congress will become to powerful, we have carefully set up a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has its own job and can not gain anymore power than the other. You are worried that the central government will gain too much power, which I can understand. We have a long history of an all powerful monarch. However, more recently we have experienced a central government with little to no power. When the Confederation was in action the Congress had no power at all, leaving us as an unstructured society, unable to set down basic laws and lay down taxes. The Constitution allows us to vote for the Congressmen we want and keep society in tact. Allowing America to be a people run society. Although it’s important for us to have a say, we still need a leader. Before, our Country didn’t even go to war together. Having a strong Congress will not result in tyranny but a successful country for generations.
-Rebecca period 2
Patrick Henry, an anti federalist, does not believe that the system of checks and balances will gives the executive branch too much power. This is clearly not true, because the system puts limits on the powers of the government. The Executive branch would be checked and be stripped of its power before it could become a tyranny. Each branch has equal power, so one branch could not take control. Also, a bill of rights is not essential in the constitution. Lastly, the government would be able to limit their powers and not let one branch take control; it's a safe system.
ReplyDelete-Conor
Per. 2
Rebuttal One
ReplyDeleteMany people known as the Anti-federalists believe that a bill of rights would benefit our country. But a bill of rights would only make the citizens more confused about their actual rights because we could not possibly list all of their rights. Also they believe that the checks and balances would not be able to limit the government’s power, but this is not correct. The checks and balances do not just limit but reins in all their power by each branch can totally stop another branches power. Also there is a suspicion that the government wont be close enough to actually help the people but by having the people chooses the officials the people will always be helped.
Peter 2
Ben Schuman
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Dear Melanchthon Smith (Caitlyn),
I, the Federalist George Washington, disagree with your thoughts of the president becoming a dictator. Us Federalists will limit their power and make sure they don’t get out of hand. Also, we need a Congress, they are the more responsible ones. Besides, we vote them into office. The people don’t need a bill of rights for the government to be limited on their power because if we ratify the Constitution we’ll limit the government’s power anyways. Therefore, you are wrong by even considering we need a bill of rights. The Constitution needs to be ratified.
Ben Schuman
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Dear Patrick Henry Lee (Leia),
I, the Federalist George Washington, disagree with your thoughts about not ratifying the Constitution. First of all, the president will not turn into another King because we will limit his powers, and he would not have all of the say. We do not need a bill of rights because the Constitution all ready protects the rights of the people, so the government can’t take over. The national government may be located far away from some states, but there will be state governments, so there won’t be a lot of chaos. These are all reasons why the Constitution needs to be ratified.
Elizabeth Per.4
ReplyDeleteI disagree to what Patrick Henry Lee/ Anna believes. We separated from Britain so America could retrieve their freedom. With the constitution, we will not lose our freedom like we did under Britain. America will only become a more strict country, and therefore be a stronger government. The constitution will not give the executive branch too much power because of the system of checks and balances. This system will assure that no one branch dominates the others, which is very important if we want to keep our freedom. There is no bill of rights, and the constitution should be ratified without a bill of rights because the rights that people have will change as time goes on. If a bill of rights is written then it will have to be continuously revised, and there are more important things that the government should be doing.
Ben Schuman
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Dear George Mason (Sarah),
I, the Federalist George Washington, disagree with your thoughts about some republican groups have more power than others. This will not happen if we ratify the Constitution because we will limit the government’s power. The House of Representatives will have a lot of diversity because the people in it will come from the states. Therefore, people will be able to agree. This is why the Constitution needs to be ratified.
Melancton Smith/ Edwin
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you. The constitution is the set of rules that we gave to our government at the start of this country. Now some say that it could become corrupt, but this is why we have this system. We made a system that consists of three branches, were power was equally divided so that no one could abuse their power. We have been working under these rules for many long years and it has worked out very well for us. Your doubt in the constitution is understandable, but we have this system to prevent tyranny from ever happening, and it has worked so far.
-George Washington/ Julianna Period 4
Many people believe that the president will gain too much power from the Constitution, putting us back into the same problem we faced with Britain. But the Constitution makes it extremely clear that this isn’t possible. The people can vote the President out of office, and the Congress and Judicial branches can have him impeached for corruption, and he can be kicked out of office depending on the results of the impeachment. Also the Constitution has “Checks and Balances”. Checks and Balances gives the three branches of government the ability to check the balances of the other two branches. Clearly, the Constitution is fine as it is.
ReplyDelete~Ellie Pd. 4
Dear George Clinton,
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington, disagree that the constitution should not be ratified the way it is. You believe that the national government has too much power over the state governments. It is like this for a reason, our national government has to have more power than the states or else’s the states would overthrow the national government. There are many different state governments and only one national government. Our national government needs to be strong. If the national government had any less power they would be to weak and vulnerable to be overthrown by the states. Our constitution should be ratified as it is.
-Stephen
p.2
Melancton Smith from period two claimed, “the executive branch would soon turn into a monarchy, since the constitution has a too general clause about what the branch can do.” I, John Jay, firmly disagree with this statement. The national government needs a strong executive branch to function properly, or else its responsibilities wouldn’t be adequately fulfilled. The Judicial branch and Legislative have numerous ways of limiting and balancing the executive power so it could never become a monarchy. For example, the president can veto laws, but his/her decision can be overruled if two-thirds of the Congress votes to pass the bill. In addition, the House of Representatives can impeach the President if he acts unconstitutionally, and the Supreme Court has the power to preside over the trial. The reason that the separation of power and these checks and balances systems were created was to prevent a certain branch from becoming too powerful compared to the rest. Therefore, it is not possible for the executive branch to attain more power than necessary. ~Sarah pd.6
ReplyDeleteGeorge Clinton from period six claimed, “the Constitution gives the national government too much power because the Supremacy Clause states that the national government’s laws are superior to the laws made by the states.” I, John Jay, firmly disagree with this statement. If the state’s laws were superior, there would virtually be no national government, be that just defeats the point of a national government. Each state would become its own country, with its own government and militia. The states would likely be warring against each other because there would be no dominant judicial branch to sort out disagreements. Also, we would be very vulnerable to foreign attack because the small divided military groups would stand no chance against large armies like the British. Even if we tried to unite without a central government to organize and direct the troops it would total chaos. England would love to conquer us again, and the only way to stop that is to have a strong military directed by a strong central government. ~Sarah pd. 6
ReplyDeleteDearest George Mason,
ReplyDeleteYou are everything but right, you are wrong. The bill of rights could be included in the Constitution, but why would we want to be anything like England? Our whole entire goal is to be a separate, independent country. All you are saying is England did this, so we should do that. If you want to be like Britain so much, join their army. We have a president to have a more graceful government. A president is someone who runs the country but doesn’t have too much power or is too different from everyone else. A king on the other hand has powers no one else can even imagine having! Kings are nothing like the people they are in charge of, we should NOT have a bill of rights. We should have a ratified Constitution. If anyone abuses their power there is a fair check and balances system that could easily take away that power with a vote, you even said you liked a place where everyone could be even and happy. Well my friend that would be the Constitution that you need to ratify.
Thank You,
Federalist: James Madison
Nora pd.6
James Madison
Federalist
AJ Gold
ReplyDelete3/1/10
Per. 6
S.S.
Melanchthon Smith Caitlyn of period 2-
I am a Federalist, and I very strongly disagree with your statement that the Constitution should be changed. First, you state, “I know the President will become a dictator if he gains too much power.” You do not know this for sure because I’m pretty sure you can’t see the future. Not only that, but with the system of checks and balances in place, no branch of government will get more powerful than another, which prevents this takeover from happening. Later you state that the Congress will also become too powerful. This can’t happen because the only have the power of the currency, trade, and defense over the country. Overall, I believe that the Constitution should be ratified as it is.
Oona Harrigan
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
George Washington
Rebuttal to Melanchton Smith
I, George Washington, Federalist have to disagree with Melanchton Smith’s argument. He says the president will become too powerful and cause the government to become a tyranny. This can not happen. The government is separated into three branches that check and balance eachother’s power. This will protect from anyone becoming too powerful. Although the government is more powerful than before, it is important to deal with issues that affect the whole country. It is unnecessary to have a bill of rights added to the Constitution. The powers of the government are already limited, and a bill of rights may have people thinking that their only rights are those listed on the bill of rights, when really they should have much more rights.
In response to George Mason, the executive branch has more than one member as a part of it. The executive branch cannot turn into a dictatorship, monarchy or tyranny because of the system of checks and balances that are set in place. The executive branch has several members such as the President, Vice President, and members of the cabinet. It is essentially impossible for the executive branch to take control on its own. Also, a bill of rights is not necessary because we do not need a section of the US Constitution to list rights. The people expect their rights protected and specifying those rights will give loop holes to the government. If a right is not listed the government will be able to say that the rights not listed are not their responsibilities. When in fact, every natural right, and other rights are the governments responsibility to protect.
ReplyDeleteKirsten Pd. 6
I, James Madison, completely disagree with you, Sir Melanchton Smith (Caitlin Tierney.) You said that, “The President will become a dictator if he gains too much power.” This would never happen. The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch are constantly checking and balancing the power the Executive branch holds in the government. A tyranny will not be controlling our government but at the same time the government will have the power to improve the country. They will be able to control our militaries and assist in bring order to society. Congress will not take over since the Judicial and Executive Branch will balance the power. And a bill of rights is completely unnecessary. The people are already protected by the government. Plus the people will think that the rights that will be protected will only be the one listed. This isn’t particularly true. In conclusion, the Constitution should be approved as is
ReplyDelete-Erica Ripperger
You, Patrick Henry are false in your beliefs of the constitution. Your first point states that the Constitution needs a bill of rights because the people will not know their rights. The Declaration of Independence states that people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This clearly states the people’s rights. Your second argument is that the Constitution gives the central government too much power, and one branch will grow too powerful in enough time. There is no possible way this could happen. Through a system of checks and balances, each government can limit each others power. No branch can do anything significant without the consult of another branch. But, your last argument states that the constitution does not represent the people, and the Constitution does not because the central government is located too far from the average community for the people to participate. This is completely wrong. Government doesn’t have to be right next door to the people for them to be represented. Unlike Great Britain, our leaders will not be over seas. An amount of miles can’t silence people. My last point is that people don’t have to be brought to the government; the state government is there to represent them. The states are like the domestic tranquility. We need them, but cannot survive on them alone; we also need to have our country to provide for the common defense.
ReplyDeleteMac Reddy Pd6
I would have to disagree with what Melanchthon Smith says. He thinks that the Constitution should have a bill of rights, but if we put a bill of rights in the constitution, that will limit our rights. Any right that we do not list will be taken away from us so that will give the government power to take away rights. Without a bill of rights we have any right and they are not limited. There are checks and balances put in place so the government will not get too much power. If one branch does something that the others don’t agree with then they can fix it and make sure one branch doesn’t get too much power.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Pd.6
Melanchthon Smith,
ReplyDeleteDo you even understand what you are saying? You are completely missing the point of the bill of rights and ratifying the Constitution. Having a bill of rights will not make our country inevitably fall into a horrible monarchy or tyranny. If anything ratifying the constitution will help us against Britain in so many ways. We would have a more powerful government and just that will lead us forward in defeating the British. I hope you’ll deeply consider ratifying this Constitution because as you now know, it will be the best thing for our country. Thank You.
James Madison/ federalist
Nora Pd.6
Brandon, Period 6
ReplyDeleteTo Melanchthon Smith (Caitlyn)-
In your argument, you stated that the government has too much power and they will become a tyranny. This can’t happen because if ratified the constitution will divide the government into three branches. Which are known as the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches. Each branch will have checks and balances on each other so that means that no one branch will have too much power. Thus, preventing the government from becoming over-powered. So there is no way that our government will become tyrannical and over-powered under those circumstances.
George Clinton stated that with the Constitution, our central government would be too great of a distance from the people being governed. Of course with the size of our nation, the federal government cannot be conveniently located for everyone, as we are too large of a society and constantly growing. However, each state has their own individual government, so distance does not completely limit participation of the people because even if they are not near the central government, they are within close access to their state government. Also, the constitution does not allow states within close proximity of the federal government to have an advantage over other states, so distance should not be considered a reason for the Constitution not to be ratified.
ReplyDeleteShea pd. 6
David
ReplyDelete2/23/10
Period #6
David; Johnny Jay/Leia; Patrick Henry Lee
I'm a Federalists, my name is John Jay and I am disagreeing with Patrick Henry Lee. We should ratify the constitution because the government will not turn into a tyranny and the people will still have power. Due to checks and balances the other branches will be able to check the executive branch, and will be able to stop anything that gets out of place. You talk about how our freedom will be stripped away, but isn’t that the reason why we had this whole war with Britain? To have freedom? You close your article by saying that the national government will be located too far away to be able to help protect the people and the country. It is true that the government will have to be located in one spot, but isn’t that the reason why we have state governments? Also as we find new land in our beautiful country the government will grow and gain respect from the people of the United States of America. That is why I Johnny Jay recommend that we the people ratify the constitution.
David
George Washington
ReplyDeleteAlex p.2
Rebuttal 1
Rebuttal to Caitlyn P.2 /Melanchthon Smith
I am sure that Melanchthon Smith is clearly wrong about her ideas because first the president would never become a dictator. I am sure of this because of the governments checks and balances to make sure no one has to much power. The reason the Kings of England became tyrants is because they had too much power, which would not happen to our Presidents. The next reason Melanchthon is wrong is because we don’t need a bill of rights. We don’t need a bill of rights is because we have the constitution.
Within response to George Clinton (Brendan), the government is an agreement with the people and its governor that rights will be protected. The Federal government cannot and will never be allowed to change the rights of people. And if such a thing did happen, impeachment might be the answer. Checks and balances, a component of the Constitution, ensures and allows other branches of government to check on each other. If riddance of natural rights became an issue, it will be surely noticed. As for the Bill of Rights protecting people from the government, our government is the protection for the people. We aren’t allowed to change the rights, and we are the people ensuring them.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth G, Period Nine
To respond to Melanchthon Smith (Caitlyn T.), our country will not end up being taken over by a dictator. The Constitution states that there will be three branches of government, the legislative, executive, and the judicial. The President cannot become a dictator because he will be checked on checks and balances. Each branch is able to make sure that everything is running smoothly and not on the road to a tyranny. Remember that the congress is also being checked on so incase it does become too powerful, things will be changed. A Bill of Rights would only state that people can only expect being protected from the rights stated. The people would be able to be apart of the government in a fair way.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth G, Period Nine
My rebuttal is directed to George Mason (Sarah M.) about the troubles with keeping a republic. With the proof of history, all of the smaller republics have been destroyed by selfish people, those who hunger for power. They had not thought enough of the citizens to prevent them from working for their own welfare. A large republic would be more beneficial for this nation. The power of checks and balances can enable stability and division between state and national government will make things more organized. And the national government would protect the people instead of having a bill of rights to protect the people from our government.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth G, Period Nine
I, John Jay, am replying to Melancton Smith (Edwin) and his thoughts about the Constitution needing a bill of rights. You say we need one or else the rights of the people will not be protected. With our government, however, there is protection for the people, and a bill of rights would lead people to believe that it does not. You also say that the executive branch will become a monarchy, which is untrue. The system of checks and balances will keep one branch from becoming too powerful. The president will be nothing like King George, if you rebuttal the Constitution.
ReplyDelete(John Jay) Olivia, Pd. 9
David P/ Patrick Henry rebuttal to Nick C/ James Madison
ReplyDeletePd. 9
3/1/10
My name is James Madison and I disagree with your statement about not ratifying the Constitution. First you say that the Constitution doesn’t have a bill of rights. I understand that it doesn’t have a bill of rights, however it doesn’t need one. The constitution already has a policy where we give equal rights to the American people. In addition, you say that it will cause another tyranny. I disagree with that as well. In the constitution, it gives the government limits to what they can or can’t do. As a result the government can’t do whatever they want. The government needs to approve the law before making it legal. Lastly you say that the Constitution doesn’t involve the people. I disagree with that statement because the whole point of the Constitution is to give all the people of America equal power. For example, the first words of the Constitution are, “We the people.” As a result, the Constitution is a better way to run America.
Federalist
ReplyDeleteChris D.
Rebuttal to Melanchthon Smith ,PD.2
In your letter, you claim "That the president will have too much power...even if we call him a president or a king." That statement is way off the mark. Under the terms of the Constitution, that will not happen, since there are other branches that will have to agree with him. That is what is so good about the Constitution-there will be three branches with equal power, so no branch will have more power than the next one has. You also claim that there is a "too powerful congress”, which also isn’t true. This isn’t true, since the congress can’t make any laws. All congress can do is create laws too pass on to the executive branch, who will then either enforce or not enforce the laws. That is why ratifying the constitution is a good idea.
Shannon O 9
ReplyDeleteIn Melanchthon Smith’s argument, he says that we should not ratify the constitution because it does not include a bill of rights. He says that the bill of rights will ensure the rights of the people, making everyone equal. I, James Madison, believe that a bill of rights will put the impression that the government is only there to protect the rights and nothing more. Some people are scarred that without a bill of rights, our government will have too much power, but we have already limited the power enough in the Constitution. A bill of rights is unnecessary and a waste of time for our nation, the Constitution is enough.
George Washington
ReplyDeleteAlex p.2
Rebuttal 2
Rebuttal to Brendan Pd.2 George Clinton
George Clinton said, “the Federalists state that this is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited in the Constitution” which is completely true and the reason we don’t need a bill of rights. George Clinton also said that our government will fail without a bill of rights, this is untrue because the Constitution covers everything that need to be covered. Our Constitution protects the rights of the people and does not need to be changed. Furthermore a bill of rights would be completely useless. It would also not provide security for people like it said.
Claire R.
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
To George Clinton,
I, James Madison, disagree that the Constitution needs a bill of rights. The government is already balanced and will not become a tyranny. It has a system of checks and balances and three equal branches of government. They will ensure that the president does not become a dictator. Citizens’ rights will be protected by the government without a bill of rights because of the system of checks and balances and the three branches. The government will not be able to abuse its power and is not too vague because each branch and government official has specific powers. A bill of rights is unnecessary in the Constitution.
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.
In Melanchthon Smith’s argument, you think that the government will gain too much power and eventually become a monarchy. But the Constitution has the system of checks and balances plus the separation of powers. This proves that the Constitution will prevent the government from getting too much power. The system of the checks and balances are there so they can provide equal power between the governments. This system will also prevent from a part of the government from dominating from the rest.
ReplyDelete- Brittany B period 9
I am replying to Melancton Smith (Edwin) and his thoughts about the Constitution needing a bill of rights. You say we need one or else the rights of the people will not be protected. With our government, however, there is protection for the people, and a bill of rights would lead people to believe that it does not. You also say that the executive branch will become a monarchy, which is untrue. The system of checks and balances will keep one branch from becoming too powerful. The president will be nothing like King George, if you rebuttal the Constitution.
ReplyDelete(John Jay) Olivia, Pd. 9
I am a Federalist and my name is John Jay (Kristen). My rebuttal is to George Mason (Virginie). You are saying that the national government is a lot stronger. This is true but as you know the separation of powers and checks and balances keep it from becoming a tyranny. Also having a leader, know as our President, is very different from having a king. The President is just voicing the words of the people, unlike a King who makes all his rules based on his opinion. The bill of rights is not needed to be added to the Constitution. Our leader has no way of becoming a tyrant because of how we set up the Constitution. By adding the bill of rights the people may think that this is needed because we are not trustworthy and this should not be the case. In conclusion, the leader cannot become a tyrant and the bill of rights should not be added because it is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI am replying to Melanchton Smith and his thoughts about the Constitution needing to be revised. He says that without a bill of rights the government can take away he rights of the people. My question is; Why would a country founded for the people take away their rights? Also, if a branch of the government were to try to take control, the other branches would stop it. They could do this because the system of checks and balances are protecting the people. So our government is unable to take over through the Constitution’s rules, so we should ratify the Constitution.
ReplyDelete(John Jay) Olivia Pd. 9
Sam K Per. 9/George Washington responding to Harry Per. 6/George Clinton
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington have read your argument for not ratifying the Constitution and I disagree. Although the Constitution does give the national government more power they still are not aloud to abuse it. It runs on a system of checks and balances so that one branch will not get to powerful. Another subject you brought up is that the national government will be able to post taxes and control the government and that the states are inferior to the national government. The reason that the national government does this is that it would give one state too much power over the other states if they were aloud to do so. This would end in a state controlling the United States of America. Also in a monarchy there is one all powerful leader but in this government there are three branches. This is why I disagree with you.
George Washington
ReplyDeleteAlex p.2
Rebuttal 3
Rebuttal to Nick Carayannopoulos / Patrick Henry
I George Washington do not agree with Patrick Henry’s statements for the following reasons. The first is that our country doesn’t need a bill of rights because the Constitution covers everything. The next reason is because the Constitution doesn’t give the government to much power because of the system of checks and balances. The last reason is because the stamen the national government does not include the people is completely untrue. The people are included in the constitution and it doesn’t need to be changed.
Claire R.
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
To George Mason,
I, James Madison, disagree that it will be difficult for America to maintain a republic form of government. History proves that smaller republics have failed because they have been destroyed by other groups. People in a small republic had their own interests. A large republic would work because the government would be organized and the power would be divided equally. Americans mostly share the same interests. For example, we all wanted to be free from England. I think that America will be a successful republic.
Katie/James Madison period 9, responding to Virginie George Mason period 4
ReplyDeleteYes, there is only one president, but in no way would it be anything similar to the King of England or any king for that matter. I believe that America has learned it's lesson but we cannot afford to let America be too weak either. If you have no power or control over our people, then we will break from the inside. Why is power something we should be afraid of? If we, as a united country come together to unanimously vote and agree upon a document that would better our country, I’d say that we have strong country. Even more so, if we could all agree on the rules and all have our say on what goes in, that in its self is giving people power because they get to add and support what they believe. In a way even without this bill of rights, everyone has power.
To George Clinton, I state that what he said is incorrect and false. I am stating that the constitution does not need any more revisions. Without the Bill of Rights, the federal government can’t easily compromises the rights of the people because the power of the government is limited. Also, the Bill of Rights would give the impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. George Clinton also implies that in the past civilizations have proven that the people’s rights should be completely protected. Well I say the history has proven that all of the small republics of the past had been destroyed by selfish groups.
ReplyDeleteperiod 4 chris algarin
Rebuttal 1
ReplyDeleteGeorge Mason, your argument ignores all basic principles we added to the constitution to avoid adding a bill of rights. Abuse of power is actually impossible according to the constitution, the system of checks and balances insures all branches have the right to check each other’s power and prevent this possibility. Moreover, all rights of the people are protected by the government’s duties to do so. A bill of rights would make citizens believe only specific rights listed are protected. No citizen will have reason for concern of their rights being taken. The very duties of the government are to protect the rights they are assured as an American.
Rebuttal 2
Melanchthon Smith, you state that both the executive and legislative branches have too much power resulting in the need of a bill of rights. A system of checks and balances, created by the constitution, prevents any one branch from granting them selves too much power. All branches will be given the authority to check each branch’s power and alter their decisions for the better. Additionally, members of congress are chosen by the people, to speak for the people. Members of congress elected would have to be responsible in guarding their rights, otherwise they could not be elected. Due to how much power is given to the people in controlling their own government no bill of rights should even be considered.
-Jack Kessler pd6
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith(per. 4) thinks that the government will have too much power and turn into a tyranny. Our country will not turn into a tyranny or a monarchy. The Constitution does not have any loop holes that can cause a tyranny. The Constitution has checks and the separation of powers. The checks will be able to let other parts of the government rule over or “check” what they’re doing. So if one part of the government tried to gain more power or do something that violates the people, another part of the government would be able to stop them from doing so. The separation of powers also divides the power equally so it would not be a tyranny, and their power is equal. If we add a bill of rights, there would be too much limitations and the government would not be as effective. The government would not be able to protect us as well as they could if the bill of rights were added. There are no loop holes in the Constitution, and it is perfect the way it is. It does not need a bill of rights.
Jack Per.9
Rebuttal 1
ReplyDeleteIn response to Melanchthon Smith, there should not be a bill of rights in the Constitution. If there was one, we would only receive protection from the rights listed. If we do not have one we can expect protection of all the rights. Our government cannot become a tyranny and take over. It has limitations on it from separation of powers and checks and balances. Therefore it could not take over or find their way around our rights and laws.
Caitlin S.
Pd 6
David; Johnny Jay/Kyle period #4
ReplyDeleteThe government will not have too much power over the constitution, with simple check and balances, and separation of powers our government will not become a tyranny, and will by no circumstance abuse “The people’s” natural rights. We aren’t pushing for an unorganized government all the people really want is to be free, so by saying that the Federalists are trying to make the government less organized than you are wrong. Right now we are in an argument about how the government should be ran, we are all on the same side here, and we the Federalists wouldn’t allow the government to be that weak and allow it to become a tyranny.
David period #6
Elizabeth Per.4
ReplyDeleteGeorge Mason/Kyle believe that a bill of rights should be drafted in favor of America. I disagree with him because the Constitution gives the government enough guidelines. If we give the government too many limitations, the country’s protection may be on the fence. Communication will not be an issue with the government because every state has its own smaller government. Of course the main government has the most power, but there is no reason for them to communicate regularly, only when there is a problem being addressed or new laws being placed. The reason we separated from Britain is because they had become too powerful and we wanted freedom. That didn’t mean the new government should have such strict guidelines that they are powerless.
David; Johnny Jay period #6/ Nick C. period #2
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington was correct though, he stated what the government has control over. Trade, currency and defense are common things that the government should be able to control. “The people” also have the opportunity to “bear arms” and be able to protect themselves from threat. The government in this case is only protecting us from threats from other countries. If the people were in control of trade, the people would only do what is best for themselves, the governments main focus would be on the country’s need not jus a single person, that is why there is elections to have a fair chance in being able to run these things. The people’s right are to be free and to be able to live a happy life, the governments job, is to protect those rights.
I, Gouverneur Morris, have read Melanchthon Smith argument and disagree on many things. First off the Executive branch cannot become a dictator because of the system of checks and balances, which keeps each branch from overpowering the other, which will keep everyone safe from a tyranny. And the Congress is partially dependant on the people, we the people make decisions for the congress like bills, we decide on bills which is then determined by the Congress whether to become a law or not. An again the Congress cannot became more powerful than the other branches because of the system of checks and balances. And lastly the bill of rights will not give enough power to the government, which will make the bill of rights just as affective as the Article of Confederation. Jack period 2
ReplyDeleteI, Gouverneur Morris, have read Melanchthon Smith argument and disagree on many things. First off the bill of rights will not give enough power to the government, which will make the bill of rights just as affective as the Article of Confederation. Also The Executive branch cannot become too powerful because of the system of checks and balances, which keeps each branch from overpowering the other, which will keep everyone safe from a tyranny. Also if the President becomes too powerful he can be impeached which can happen if he tries to become another King George. Jack period 2
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Per.4
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Melanchthon Smith/Caitlyn. The President cannot become a dictator because of the system of checks and balances. With the Supreme Court and the senate checking in on him it would be very hard for the president to obtain too much power. America needs a congress; if we let the people run the country were will we end up? Nearly any Americans are fit to run a country, putting our country in the hands of Americans will lead to more rebellions than if we have congress. Having a bill of rights is unnecessary. The more limitations we put on the government the harder it will be for them to make laws that are needed to protect the nation. The government is given power for a reason, and a bill of rights would take too much of their power away.
I, Gouverneur Morris, have read Melanchthon Smith argument and disagree on many things. First off the bill of rights may eliminate loopholes but still will not give enough power to the government, which will make the bill of rights just as affective as the Article of Confederation. Also the Constitution was designed for the people so the government will not be able to interfere with the people’s rights. Also if the Senate becomes too powerful the system of checks and balances will take care of that certain branch to make sure we do not have another tyranny. Jack period 2
ReplyDeleteMary 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
Mate Landeka
ReplyDeletePd.6
To Patrick Henry Lee (Kelly Pd.9)
Hello, my name is John Jay, I am a Federalist and I would have to disagree with what you are saying about the Constitution for several different reasons. I don’t understand what you mean when you say all thirteen colonies won’t cooperate because all the colonies realize that if they don’t cooperate, America will not be a success. I don’t understand why you think that the colonies won’t participate. They know that they need to participate and if they don’t, America would be destroyed so there would be no reason for them to not participate. You also stated that the Constitution gives the government too much power, but I would have to disagree because in the system of Limited Government the Constitution states that the government is not all powerful, but can only do what the people say it can do. Also with that, the system of checks and balances makes sure each branch of government is able to check, or control the power of the other two branches so none of the branches would have too much power. You also say that you want the bill of rights because the government could take away anything not specified by the Constitution, but everything in the Constitution is specified and explained so that the government could not take anything away. I believe that the constitution should stay exactly as it is because there is nothing wrong with it.
Rebuttal 3
ReplyDeleteThe government would not become a monarchy or tyranny without a bill of rights. The national government is limited by checks and balances and separation of powers. With these limitations, there is no way they can become a tyranny. Also the national government its balanced out among the three branches. This is so no one can over power another. They would not be able to dominate another.
Caitlin S.
Pd 6
Dear Patrick Henry Lee, (Ethan)
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison, have read your statement and disagree that the Constitution should be ratified. You stated that the government should have little power, the government needs power. The government needs power to certain tasks that face the entire nation including trade, currency, and defense. If they don’t have these powers the government would be inefficient and unorganized. You also state that the government will become tyranny, which is not true. It won’t become a tyranny because of the system of checks and balances and there are three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, that will make sure that each branch will not abuse their power. Also, the Bill of Rights gives the government little power, which means that the state government can abuse their power without being stopped. This is why the Constitution should be ratified.
Matt Lazz/ James Madison
Per: 9
George Clinton, I am deeply sorry but i must strongly disagree with you. The Constitution is fine, and therefore needs no revision what so ever, you just want to find a way to get a specific bill of rights in there. The Constitution is just as promising and easy as the bill of rights would be, if we wanted to be like England. The Constitution is also a key insurance and convenience and it is also no easier to read than the bill of rights. The Constitution could easily be as careful and specified as any bill of rights could ever be if that is what your worried about. It is surely impossible that the Constitution could fail. It is the key to taking over Britain and, it is the key to become purely independent and successful as our own country. There isn't any other way, vote to ratify the Constitution. What's the harm in letting our country take over Britain?
ReplyDeleteJames Madison/Federalist
Nora pd.6
To Melanchthon Smith-
ReplyDeleteYou stated that the president will become a dictator if he gains too much power. The president will never become a dictator because the Constitution gives Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch. If the president is getting too powerful, we can simply impeach him/her. The reason why the executive branch will have more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation is because we need a strong executive branch to deal with tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade and defense. The president will not become a dictator because of the limitations placed on him/her by the system of checks and balances. Also congress oversees the president’s appointments and checks on what he/she is doing. I, James Madison disagree with this statement and believe that the president will not become a dictator.
-Alexandra Pd.1
Mary Rippe pd.1 -- Edwin Gee pd. 2
ReplyDeleteYou declared that the Executive branch would soon turn into monarchy because of the Constitutions 'generality'. In truth, the Executive branch needs to be granted more specific powers so as to smoothly operated a large nation such as ours. The Constitution also proposes that the governments powers are separated into three branches so that no group can dominate the others. The Constitution promotes justice and power being brought together so that whatever is just may be powerful and whatever is powerful may be just. None of us federalists are interested in power for power's sakes, but we're interested in power that is moral, that is right, and that is good. Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power, and the Constitution will assist America to do so.
Virginie Per.4 (George Mason)
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton think that the Bill of Rights should not be included in the Constitution. As you stated the national government is a lot stronger than it was before and only one person is the President, which is very similar to having a king, like in England. Well we have checks and balances which means that other branches are going to check up on other branches so that no on has too much power so it wouldn’t be like the king in England. Also, in the Constitution it makes sure that people have freedom and the common well being. The Constitution is making sure that the people can create a government and feel safe with it. People will still feel comfortable if the President became a tyrannical because the other branches would make sure nothing happens to the people and they maintain their rights. That is why I Alexander Hamilton recomend ratifying the Constitution
Jack per. 9
Mate Landeka
ReplyDeletePd.6
To Melanchthon Smith (Katie Pd.4)
I am John Jay, a Federalist and I am in shock that you think that the bill of rights would really make that big of a difference. There is no need for the people to have to see in paper what they can and can’t do because they need to be able to figure it out for themselves. The bill of rights would not guarantee anything because it would just be stating everything that the Constitution has already stated. You said that the bill of rights would guarantee that the government doesn’t have too much power, but the Constitution already states that. The system of the Limited government states that the government is not all powerful, but can only do what the people say it can do. You also stated that the bill of rights would insure that everyone is equal, but if everyone is equal then it would be total chaos. The Constitution is making sure that there are leaders, but that the leaders can’t get too powerful. Everyone should not be equal, but there should be leaders and the Constitution is there so that nobody will get to powerful. I believe that there is no need for a bill of rights because the Constitution explains everything and a bill of rights would be a waste of a document.
To Patrick Henry Lee-
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison disagree with your statement that we need a bill of rights. A bill of rights is unnecessary because the government’s powers are limited. The powers of the national government are separated into three branches so no one branch can take over the other. Through the system of checks and balances, the national government would not become a tyranny. Also, the constitution provides protections for the state governments to prevent their being destroyed by the national government. I believe that we do not need a bill of rights and we should ratify the constitution right away.
-Alexandra Pd.1
Mary Rippe pd. 1 -- Sarah McIntyre pd. 1
ReplyDeleteAs a Federalist, I am completely confused with your previous statement. You declare that it is wrong to upkeep a republican government and that all republican governments have been destroyed by selfish groups. This is exactly what the Constitution proposes should be changed! The Constitution introduces the idea of a large republic where the government revolves around a system of checks and balances, which is what you say that you agree with. Later in your statement, you conclude in declaring that, due to the diversity of people, America could never decide on something as a whole. In response to this, the Constitution also proposes the idea of electing government officials to represent a states/cities wants and needs. When all of the officials come together to conclude on an idea on National levels, a piece of everybody's desires will be represented. Overall, I urge you to seriously reconsider which side you are truly supporting.
Jake K/John Jay rebuttal to Caroline M/George Mason
ReplyDeleteYes, it might be that the national government has more power, but in order for our new found government to function correctly we have to give them a great deal of our countries power. First off, when we had the Articles of Confederation as the focal point of our government we were in complete chaos with no boundaries and if we were attacked by another country our newly found country would not survive. Even though giving power to the central government might scare you because of the horrible monarchy we suffered back in Europe this will not occur again because of the system of checks and balances. This complicated system keeps any branch form having complete power by giving the Congress the power to impeach the President; the President has the power to appoint the Congress members, and the Supreme Court the power to approve the laws. As you can see all of these branches main powers are limited by another branch giving no section complete power. As an Anti-Federalist you should not have to worry because as the first line of the preamble implies the people have the power.
George Mason believes that we should not ratify the constitution, because it will lead to another tyranny. This nonsense is tearing this wonderful country apart. Why can't we just agree that the system of checks and balances puts limits on the powers of the government? we made that system specifically to stop another tyranny from occurring, it will not fail. He also believes that this government would fail and the executive branch would gain too much power. This simply would not happen. These limitations are made to give other branches a way of controlling the rest of the government from taking over. This country needs a strong government guaranteed not to fail, and this just might be it. We cannot pass it by for some government that could more easily become a tyranny.
ReplyDelete-Conor
Per. 2
Dear George Milton,
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington disagree with your statement. There is no need for a bill of rights because the government will have limited power. Also the government cant get to powerful because of the system of checks and balances the other branches have to check the power of the other branches of government. With this system in place it is almost impossible for any of the branches of government to get to powerful. The president can’t make a decision without congress agreeing on it. This is why there is no need for a bill of rights in the Constitution
Matt Lat. Pd.9
Mate Landeka
ReplyDeletePd.6
To Melanchthon Smith (Kara Pd.6)
I am John Jay, a Federalist and I would have to respectfully disagree with all of your statements about the bill of rights and the Constitution. You wrote that we do not want to have a leader, but we already do and he is called the president. There is a difference between a leader that has limits and a leader that doesn’t. King George III was a leader that didn’t have people to control him, but the president has limits and can’t do anything without the people’s consent. You stated that there are many great laws in the Constitution, but they need to be restated. I would have to disagree because for one reason if they are great, why would we restate them? Also, I believe that they are perfectly fine and do not have to be restated. You also said that the bill of rights would make sure that the government would not find a way around a rule which is true, but with the Constitution even if they did find a way it’s what the people say. Limited Government makes sure that the government is not all powerful, but can only do what the people say it can so the government can’t just find their way around laws without checking with the people and chances are the people will not let them find ways around laws. The Constitution needs to stay the same because America will be fine with it.
Dear George Mason/Vikranth,
ReplyDeleteOur Constitution should be ratified in its current state without a bill of rights. A strong federal government is needed to maintain a strong country. During the time of the Articles of Confederation the federal government was weak while the state governments were strong, and the United States of America was weak. The rights of people are already assured because the powers of the federal government are limited by checks and balances. A strong national government which protects the rights of the people will gain the trust and support of the people. The country will never become a tyranny because the checks and balances already limit the power of the president. For all of the reasons stated above there is no need for a bill of rights.
Alec, P.4
Rebuttal 3
ReplyDeleteGeorge Mason, you believe that the constitution does not establish enough power in the state governments resulting in their end. In the constitution however, we make sure to put in proper protection for the state governments to protect each individual state. The national government is very strictly limited in their duties for the states they can only deal with issues such as trade, currency, and defense. Recent issues have arisen which increase our need for such a central government to protect the peoples’ rights. If the idea of power is abused by one branch of government I assure you the system of checks and balances will be very effective in restricting each branch to its individual duties. In conclusion, our restrictions on the national government will be very effective in protecting the state governments and the people from a tyranny.
-Jack Kessler pd6
To George Mason-
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison disagree with what you said about how our new government would have trouble maintaining the republican form of government. Throughout history, it has proven to us that all of the small republics have been destroyed by selfish groups. The citizens were seeking their own selfish interests rather than working for the common welfare. A large republic, in which the government would be based on a system of checks and balances, would be better. Also, the power would be divided between the national and the state governments. Under this government, it would be harder for special interests to secure their goals and violate the common welfare.
-Alexandra Pd.1
Alex Kay period 4 (Patrick Henry Lee)
ReplyDeleteI, Alexander Hamilton, think that the Constitution will not turn in to a tyranny because of checks and balances. Checks and balances is when one branch checks up on another branch to make sure that they don’t become too powerful. In the Constitution it makes sure that citizens have the common defense, the general welfare, to create peace in our nation, and to have fairness with in the people. In the Constitution the legislative goes over the laws first to make sure the laws are fair so it would be fair to the citizens. Also, I think that if the Bill of Rights was not included to the constitution the people would have too many right and they would be the monarchy not the government.. This is why I, Alexander Hamilton, ratified the Constitution.
Jack per.9
Matt
ReplyDeleteP. 9
Melanchthon Smith(period 2) believes that the President will gain too much power and become a dictator. I disagree with this because the system of Checks and Balances and Seperation of Power makes sure the government will not become a tyranny. He also states that our country needs a Bill of Rights in order to be a safe, fair country. I disagree because the powers of government are limited. This will make people think people should only expect protection of the rights that are listed. This is why I disagree with Melanchthon Smith.
Dear, Melancton Smith
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington must disagree with your statement. The executive branch under the constitution could not get powerful enough to become a monarchy. The Constitution clearly states what the executive branch can and can’t do. If the President gets to powerful the other two branches can impeach him and then the problem would be solved. All they would have to do to impeach him to take a vote. This is how the executive branch could never become a monarchy
Matt Lat. Pd.9
Federalist
ReplyDeleteChris D.
Period 9
Rebuttal to Melanchthon Smith, PD.4
In your letter, you state “ As an Anti-Federalist, it is my strong and firm belief that a bill of rights is a crucial addition to the Constitution- without it, our country will inevitably fall into a horrible monarchy or tyranny”, which is not true, since a bill of rights is not necessary to the constitution. This is so, since the government only has limited powers. The Judicial Branch makes laws, the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. So by understanding the branches parts, you will see that the power is broken up evenly, so no branch has more power than the next. You also say that “The bill of rights eliminates any possible loop holes available to the government by completely clarifying the rights of each American, the rights that not even a government can override.” , and this is also false, since the government states the people’s rights, so the people will know when they are in a loop hole. If the government wanted to trick the people, they wouldn’t have stated what rights the people have. That is why we should ratify the Constitution.
Rebuttal #1
ReplyDeleteWill Murtishaw
George Washington
I am responding to Kelly Period 4 (George Mason). You said, “In the future, the executive branch could take advantage of their power similar to King George lll. George lll ruled our country a little while ago. While he ruled, we were taxed unfairly without representation. We had no way of getting out of the taxation and unfair laws unless, as we did, declare war.” Your argument yields a dilemma. There was a reason we broke off from England. Do you think we would make the same mistake in our society? We know that if we get the people angry they will separate and all that money will be taken out of the economy, thus hurting it. We are working hard to create a successful society and we absolutely hated what the British did to us. Don't you think we would go against the policies the British made? Like, fighting for a war (and land for that matter) and then have the government take absolute power over the people. For example, the Intolerable Acts and lots of other taxes that we greatly despised. We will probably not do the same. We also do not want to go into another war and spend all that time and money. We especially hated "Taxation without representation." Due to this, the result would not be a tyranny
Matt
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
Anti-Federalists believe that the President and the executive branch will turn into monarchy if the Constitution is not ratified. It is clear that the system of Checks and Balances will make sure that no branch will become more powerful than others. Also, Melanchthon Smith believes the President will gain too much power and start making bad decisions. This isn’t possible because the congress has to agree with the President in order for a decision to be passed. Melanchthon Smith is saying he believes that America should be ran by people. This does not make any sense because we chose congress.
Dear Melancton Smith/ Edwin,
ReplyDeleteAs a supporter of the revolution, I must recommend the Constitution as written and this is why. In the Constitution it states that the congress not the president has the power to make laws. As people of the United States of America we have the power to get rid of the president after four years by electing someone else. A monarch has power for life. The Constitution gives the senate the power to impeach and get rid of corrupt presidents and federal officials. Any power that is not stated in the constitution automatically goes to the states. There for the executive branch will never have absolute power. The Constitution does not need an additional bill of rights.
Alec P.4
Dear George Clinton, (Harry)
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison, have read your statement and disagree that the Constitution should be ratified. You stated that the government will have too much power and will become tyranny. It will not become a tyranny because of the system of checks and balances. Also you stated that the executive branch has too much power already and will lead to a monarchy. This will also not happen because there are three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, that will make sure that each branch will not abuse their power. The Bill of Rights gives the government little power, which means that the state government can abuse their power without being stopped. The Constitution protects the rights of the people. See the difference. In conclusion, it is extremely necessary for the Constitution to be ratified.
Matt Lazz/ James Madison
Per: 9
Scott pd 9 to Kelly pd 4
ReplyDeleteAs a federalist I disagree with you. In your argument, you state that the government could turn into a tyranny. We can make sure that this will not happen with the 3 separate branches of government. These branches will have a system of checks and balances to make sure that no one branch can get any more powerful than the other. You also state that you are afraid of a central government that is too strong. If the bill of rights is put in, the government will not have enough power. The Constitution should be ratified the way it is.
Brandon, Period 6
ReplyDeleteTo Melanchthon Smith (Caroline) -
Basically, you're saying that the constitution is not completed without a bill of rights and it should not be ratified. You also state that the government can override the people's rights without a bill of rights. However, the constitution provides limitations and boundaries that make up the central government. These types of boundaries prevent the government from overriding the rights of the people. For example, the three branches and how they have checks/balances on each other so no one branch has too much power. Also it prevents the national government from having too much authority over the state government. If the government is not protecting the rights of the people then that shows that they're not doing their job. Besides, even if the government was to have too much power over us and become tyrannical, we have the power to impeach them.
Scott pd 9 to Kyyy pd 4
ReplyDeleteYou state in your argument that the main government will not be able to communicate across the country because they are all so far apart. It has been proven in the past that small groups of citizens have only sought their own selfish interests. The Constitution will work for the common welfare of all people. It will be organized with checks and balances and will work better. With the Constitution in place it will make it difficult for the small amount of citizens to do anything to violate the common welfare.
Scott pd 9 to Ethan pd 1
ReplyDeleteYou state that we need a written document showing the rights of the people. The Constitution, is a document stating the rights of the people. It specifically states “ We the people”. You also say that we need to know our rights. Isn’t this what the Constitution already does? There is no need for a bill of rights since the peoples rights are already incorporated into the Constitution and there cannot be a monarchy since there are 3 branches of government which have power over the others.
Danny Kuhn Pd. 1/ James Madison/ rebuttal towards Melanchthon Smith/Caroline Pd. 4
ReplyDeleteDear Melanchthon, you say that our country will inevitably fall into a horrible tyranny or monarchy without the bill of rights added to the Constitution. I, James Madison, as a Federalist, completely disagree with this idea of yours. A bill of rights is unneeded because the powers of the government are already limited. With the system of checks and balances the government would not “inevitably fall into a horrible tyranny or monarchy”. The governement will also be seperated into three different branches, seperating the power as well. If we did have a bill of rights than people couldn’t be sure that this system of checks and balances and limited government power even exist. If a bill of rights was added to the Constitution then people would start to question everything previously listed.
Danny
Will Murtishaw
ReplyDeleteRebuttal #3
George Washington
I am replying to Nicole Period 4 (George Clinton). You said, “… the government would be located too far away from the people being governed, and their only way to rule the people would be with and army.” How do you specifically know that the government will have to rule with and army? Where is the implication? If you and the Anti-Federalists are worried about this, than couldn’t we just have government sub-stations in each of the states? This would be a safe as well as smart compromise. The people could participate and the people could also contact the government if they feel something is wrong. We do not necessarily have to rule with an army. We can use that army if someone is trying to conquer us or if we receive a threat. Most importantly, the idea of sub-stations in the states would allow the people to speak out about something the government may not have noticed. The three branches can discuss it and decide what to do about it.
Dear George Mason, (Austin)
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison, have read your statement and disagree that the Constitution should be ratified. You stated that the government will become tyranny. This will not happen though because of the system of checks and balances. Also you stated that the executive branch has too much power already and will lead to a monarchy. This will also not happen because there are three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, that will make sure that each branch will not abuse their power. You also state that the Constitution should have the Bill of Rights. We shouldn’t though because the Bill of Rights gives the government little power, which means that the state government can abuse their power without being stopped. In conclusion, it is extremely necessary for the Constitution to be ratified.
Matt Lazz/ James Madison
Per: 9
Matt
ReplyDeletePeriod 9
I disagree with George Clinton saying we need a Bill of Rights. I believe the Bill of Rights is unnecessary because people are going to think they’re only protected by the rights that are listed. Melanchthon Smith stated that without a Bill of Rights or country will fall into a tyranny or monarchy. This is not true because we have a system of Checks and Balances that keeps our government stable. He also states that the executive branch will takeover. This isn’t possible because congress has to agree with its decisions.
Jack M,pd2 george washington
ReplyDeleterebuttal to Patrick Henry
I george washington would have to disagree on the points that Patrick Henry said about not ratifying the constitution. You say that our country needs a bill of rights like the British had made. i disagree on this statement for a couple reasons. My first being that if we make a bill of rights the people will think that the rights on the bill are the only ones we have. If there is just a constitution then they will know that all of there rights are there. Also are government's power is limited enough were we don't need a bill of rights. Finally if we put a bill of rights in our government like the British we will be more like the British. this is on reason we should ratify the constitution
Jack
Brandon, Pd.
ReplyDeleteTo Melanchthon Smith (Brian) -
Just because the constitution does not include a bill of rights does not mean that it's not completed. You say that without a bill of rights the government can just take away the rights of the people. In some cases you may be correct. However, if the people feel that our government is abusing their powers we have the liberty to impeach our leaders. The constitution provides the freedom for the people to elect and impeach our leaders. There are also boundaries that are incorporated in the constitution so the government can't take away the natural rights of the people. In conclusion, it is impossible for the government to simply take away the rights of the people with or without a bill of rights.
Dear Patrick Henry Lee/ Ethan,
ReplyDeleteThere is no need for a bill of rights because the Constitution protects our rights and limits the power of government. The Constitution limits the president to a four year term in office. No monarch ever serves for only four years!! If the government makes a law that takes away our rights, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional, and the law will be void. The government will never fail to take care of us because we will elect senators and representatives whose job is to make laws that help us. The rights of the people are implied throughout the Constitution. A bill of rights is definitely unnecessary.
Alec P.4
Brandon, Pd.
ReplyDeleteTo Melanchthon Smith (Brian) -
Just because the constitution does not include a bill of rights does not mean that it's not completed. You say that without a bill of rights the government can just take away the rights of the people. In some cases you may be correct. However, if the people feel that our government is abusing their powers we have the liberty to impeach our leaders. The constitution provides the freedom for the people to elect and impeach our leaders. There are also boundaries that are incorporated in the constitution so the government can't take away the natural rights of the people. In conclusion, it is impossible for the government to simply take away the rights of the people with or without a bill of rights.
Danny Kuhn Pd. 1/James Madison/ rebuttal towards George Clinton/ Harry Pd. 6
ReplyDeleteI am addressing this rebuttal to George Clinton, an Anti-Federalist who claims that the national government is given way too much power. You also think that the state government is given far too little power, and will soon be obliterated by the national government. This however, is quite untrue. Even though the national government had much more power under the Constitution than it did the Articles of Confederation its powers are greatly limited. The national government can only deal with the problems that face our entire country, like defense, trade, and currency. The national government could not gain too much power because of the system of checks and balances, and the separation of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Not only this, but the Constitution provides rights and protections for the state government. So, the states can have a voice as well, and not be overshadowed by the national government.
Danny
Brandon, Pd.
ReplyDeleteTo Melanchthon Smith (Brian) -
Just because the constitution does not include a bill of rights does not mean that it's not completed. You say that without a bill of rights the government can just take away the rights of the people. In some cases you may be correct. However, if the people feel that our government is abusing their powers we have the liberty to impeach our leaders. The constitution provides the freedom for the people to elect and impeach our leaders. There are also boundaries that are incorporated in the constitution so the government can't take away the natural rights of the people. In conclusion, it is impossible for the government to simply take away the rights of the people with or without a bill of rights.
Mark
ReplyDeletePd 2
I am James Madison, a Federalist. I am disagreeing with George Mason saying we don’t need a constitution. George, you said that we need a bill of rights and that is absolutely true. This will give clear rights to the government so they don’t abuse their power. Also it will make sense to everybody that everyone will have equal rights. If the bill of rights get to go through, everyone will be a lot happier because their will be a document that states everyone has rights. Without it there will be no proof that people have rights.
Mark
I George Washington completely disagree with Melanchthon Smith. You say the president will become a dictator, witch could not happen because we have three branches of government that run by checks and balances. You say the congress is to powerful and it should be run by people, but you the people vote for the congress so then its your fault if u vote for a bad one. If you take to much power away from the national government, witch the bill of rights will its bad. This is so because it will not be organized and civilized without a decently powerful government. I finally state the constitution should stay as it is!
ReplyDeleteChris period 4
Mark Lazzarotti
ReplyDeletePd 2
I am James Madison, a Federalist. I am disagreeing with George Mason saying we don’t need a constitution. George, you said that we need a bill of rights and that is absolutely false. It is a waist because everyone knows they have rights and take advantage of it. It is a waist of paper. There is know need for the bill of rights and it would just be a waist.
Mark Pd 2
ReplyDeleteI am James Madison, a Federalist. I am disagreeing with Patrick Henry Lee. It is kind of obvious that everyone would know the rights they have because all you have to do is think. People have so many rights and everyone knows about it. There is no point of wasting time creating a bill of rights when everyone knows their rights. Our time has to be spent on things that are important and necessary. Not things that we want but don’t need.
George Washington,Jack.M
ReplyDeleterebuttal to George Mason
I george washington disagree with the statements that George Mason said about not Ratifing the constitution. George Mason said that the constitution will start a tyranny and contest our freedom. Tyranny in our government is something that will never happen with our costitution ratified. This is because of the checks and balances that are in place with the constitution will make sure that a tyranny will not happen in our government. Also because of seperation of powers most of the power is disributed fairly between each group. This is why we should ratify the constitution.
Jack.M
Mark Pd 2
ReplyDeleteI am James Madison, a Federalist. I am disagreeing with George Clinton. The national government wouldn’t have a problem just because there is no bill of rights. That is not enough to destroy a whole government system. It is clear to everybody to that people have rights. Know one thinks to themselves do I have rights or not and that is why the bill of rights is unnecessary. It wouldn’t be tyranny because we have our government organizes. The bill of rights is a waste.
Federalist
ReplyDeleteDavid P
Rebuttal to George Clinton Pd. 6
Pd. 9
3/1/10
George Clinton, in your letter you state that the government has the power to control an army and can impose taxes on the people, and that they are going a little too far. Also you state that a Constitution would cause another monarchy. In addition I disagree with your statement because with monarchies, the king could just do whatever they want and make the people do anything. However, since we have a government, there are limits to what they can and can’t do, which means he can’t manipulate whoever or she wants. In order for a law to get passed it has to go through a whole series of government officials in order for it to be passed. That is why I believe that having a constitution will not cause a tyranny.
When debating the Constitution, many people dance around the truth. Many, such as George Mason say that the Constitution needs a bill of rights, so that it ensures that the people are protected from the government. If the people are the government, why should they be protected from it? It was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence that it is all men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And even so, the government is made through a system of representatives of the people that check each other branch. Not only, but we the people can vote, each individually. There is no way the people can lose their rights without voting them away. Another argument is that large republics were never successful. Ancient Rome. The Roman republic was very successful, and through the Constitution, the United States can be the same way.
ReplyDeleteMac Reddy Pd.6
Jack.M,pd2 George Washington
ReplyDeleterebuttal to Melenchton Smith
I George Washington disagree with the statements Melenchton Smith said about not ratifying The Constitution. You say that we should revise some of the laws in the Constitution because the federal government will try to extort money from us. This will never happen because of the checks and balances in the constitution make sure that a thing like this won't happen. Also with all the limitations to the government it doesn't have enough power to take a lot of maney from us. This is why the constitution should be ratified
Julia period 1 (George Washington) to Virginie (George Mason)
ReplyDeleteYou said we should have a back up plan in case the president gets too much power. We can impeach the president if this does happen. The president will be kicked out of office and the vice president will take over. Although it may occur, and it has happened before, it will be hard to give the president too much power with the checks and balances. The citizens of the USA have to vote on all the changes the president makes, so we can not give him too much power easily.
Julia period 1 (George Washington) to Harry (George Clinton)
ReplyDeleteYou said that “The ultimate result of the “over the top” government established by this Constitution will be absolute tyranny.” The government will never become “over the top” unless we the citizens let him. There are checks and balances that will give him less power and we the people vote on all the laws he makes. We determine how much power the president gets if we vote or not. The bill of rights would be unnecessary, because our Constitution states that we have say in our government.
Julia period 1 (George Washington) to Nick (Patrick Henry)
ReplyDeleteYou said people do not know their rights. I disagree because doesn’t the Constitution state their rights? I think that we do know our rights and we should ratify the Constitution. We have had enough time to look it over and everyone has equal rights and the three branches of government are strong too. No single branch gets more power than the other. Everyone has equal rights and know their rights.
Danny Kuhn Pd. 1/James Madison/ rebuttal towards Patrick Henry Lee/ Michael Pd. 1
ReplyDeletePatrick Henry Lee: as an Anti-Federalist you believe that the Constitution should not be ratified, and one of your biggest reasons is because you think the executive branch has been given way too much power. A strong executive branch is vital for the national government so it can complete all of its tasks and take care of all its duties to benifit our nation. Since the national government is separated into three different branches, the power of the national government is split as well. This means that the executive branch can’t overrule the other branches, and it can’t control all of the national government. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Congress are granted ways to check the power usage of the executive branch. They can make the executive branch does not use its powers unfairly or unjustly, and so it does not become anything related to a monarchy or a tyranny. The executive branch has no more power than Congress or the Supreme Court.
Danny
Patrick Henry Lee, period 9 thinks that the constitution shouldn’t be ratified. The democracy is most certainly not too large to be effective. The federal government is meant for the big things, not each individual opinion of every person. That’s why there will still be a state government. The states would deal with all the more local problems, so really nothing is going to change. And the government won’t become corrupted either. The constitution itself has been looked over so that there aren’t any specific details left out. And why would us Federalists want a corrupted government anyway. It’s not like we want one, that’s why the constitution was created in the first place. -Joey (James Madison) period 2
ReplyDeleteJohn Jay Says:
ReplyDeleteGeorge Clinton,
You say the Constitution can twist words around and not give us our rights but in truth, the Constitution not only protects our country from foreign invaders but in our towns and homes, too. The constitution ensures justice and liberty, enforcing the system of checks and balances, making sure we aren't taken advantage of. "Establishment of Justice" ensures that there's fairness within the states. The Constitution was created with our future leaders in mind. It consists of values and beliefs many of us want to support and don't want to manipulate. A bill of rights is a simple restatement of the Preamble and an unnecessary document. Our rights are represented in the Constitution and I have confidence this document will not fail.
-Rebecca period 2
Rebuttal to George Mason
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison must see things differently since the Constitution seems as though it will alleviate all the problems we have had in the past without the bill of rights. The bill of rights is just an extra tool to shape the government, but is it really necessary? No, it’s not and I will be happy to explain to you why it’s not. First off it’s just taking up time that could be used to ratify the Constitution and start forming a strong central government. Also some parts of the bill of right don’t give us protection in all the areas we want. Another one of your concern was too much power in the executive branch which would be impossible to happen. The reason that could not happen is because of the system of check and balances. In this system is requires all branches to regularly check on the other branches so no branch could get too strong and we would have a balanced government. I really believe the Constitution is fine without the bill of rights and that you can see why it can be ratified without any changes.
Maddie K. Period: 1
Rebuttal to George Mason
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison understand your concern, but I also know that the Constitution is not what you believe it is. If we were to ratify the Constitution there is no possible way to have a tyranny. That is true because within the Constitution is a system of check and balances. This system allows no branch to get too strong because they are constantly checking on each other to create equal power within each other. Also the Constitution does provide protection for the people. Another good thing about the Constitution is that is requires the government to take care of taxes, and trade, etc. which added stress to the people and now they won’t have to deal with that anymore. By giving the power to the government it actually makes lives better because everything that goes on is written out in a Constitution therefore all laws have to be followed. Now you can see why we can really benefit from the Constitution and know that it’s not something that shouldn’t be approved.
Maddie K. Period: 1
Rebuttal to Melanchthon Smith
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison disagree with you for many reasons. I believe the Constitution is a worth while document and that by adding on the bill of right is just takes up time and space. The bill of rights all limits our power even more therefore no one branch can get too strong. Also within the Constitution there is a system of checks and balances which don’t allow any branch to get too strong. Another reason why I disagree is because by having a bill of right it would give us an impression that we only wanted protection of the rights listed which is not what we really wanted to do which is why the Constitution was the right way to go. Therefore we do not need the bill of right because the Constitution is able to fix all the worries that people have had, therefore making the bill of rights unnecessary.
Maddie K. Period: 1
In response to Patrick Henry Lee, the national government is not located right in the middle of the country but it’s not necessary for it to be. The national government is represented in each state by state and local governments. The people do not need to have the national government worrying about problems having to deal with individual states. The national government only has to deal with national problems, not small state problems. The national government would be wasting valuable time on matters that can be resolved within the state, or even local governments. The government cannot think of the well-being of each and every person but they can focus on what is best for the majority of the people.
ReplyDeleteKirsten Pd.6
Rebuttal to Patrick Henry Lee
ReplyDeleteI, James Madison have a completely different opinion about the Constitution. I believe the Constitution will make drastic changes to the life of people now, but in a very good way so they can lead a better lifestyle. The Constitution will not take the rights away from people it will just be seen in a different way. Instead of having the people who we are rule everything, a well constructed government system will be controlling many. Except having the Government won’t cause tyranny in any way because there will also be a system of checks and balances included. This system states that the three branches of government that we will have had the ability to make checks on the different braches therefore making sure no branch can be too strong and everything is balanced. As you can see the Constitution is a well organized document that won’t cause you any problems when it become ratified.
Maddie K. Period: 1
Dear Melanchthon Smith,
ReplyDeleteI, George Washington, completely disagree with your statement about how the President will become a dictator and gain too much power if we don’t revise the Constitution. Through the idea of Federalism, the Constitution clearly divides the power of the government equally between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Also, the document allows Congress to follow the system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government achieves too much power. Another point is that the President can’t make a law without having Congress pass it as well. The people are in charge of deciding who wins the positions of government, and they are the people whom we trust to lead our country. So as you can see, there are many rules and regulations that make it impossible for the executive branch to gain too much power, therefore a bill of rights is unnecessary.
-Nora, p.1
John Jay Says:
ReplyDeleteDearest Patrick Henry Lee,
I very much disagree with your statement that General Welfare is impossible for a nation as large as ours. We are Americans now. It’s important that we try our best to make our country a successful one. Everyone deserves a chance, a helping hand in a time of need. Of course we will be unable to help every person in America but don’t the people we’re able to help count for anything. I agree that we can’t help everyone but it’s important that we make helping the less fortunate a priority of our government. They may have lots of power, but it’s being used for good. Every person’s life we save, counts as a U.S. victory. If we can help, we should, which is why “Promoting The General Welfare” is so important and should be incorporated in our government.
-Rebecca period 2
Dear Patrick Henry,
ReplyDeleteMy name is George Washington, and I disagree with some of your ideas about why the Constitution shouldn’t be ratified. Most importantly, you are mistaken when you state that the national government is located to far away from the people, who must be included in running a successful country. The people will have plenty of opportunities to participate in the survival of this government and country. Such as, they have the ability to choose and decide those who are involved in the government through the process of voting. Also, the point of the government isn’t to control the people, even if they are farther away than others. So there would be no need for any sort of military force to happen within the country, and no chance for there to be a tyranny. In conclusion, I believe that it is the right time to pass the Constitution.
Nora, pd. 1
Hello, I am George Washington, and I disagree with something that George Mason stated. He said, “Thirdly, the Constitution allows the government to hold an army even when there is no war, meaning they could declare war and it might not be to the best interest of America.” First of all, why would a government declare war in their own country, endangering themselves and the people they care about? Secondly, we the people have the power to choose and vote for who we believe will do the best job running our country. Therefore, we have to trust that if they do declare war that it is our last resort to safety, and that it is absolutely necessary. For the reasons provided above, the Constitution should definitely be ratified.
ReplyDeleteNora, pd.1
Claire L. / George Washington rebuttal to Virginie/ George Mason
ReplyDeleteThe government has put in place checks and balances, like you said this is a good idea. I agree the government has more power then it did before but the checks and balances keep them from getting too much power. If the government didn’t have the power to make laws, then the states would have that power. If this happened, we would not be a united nation, we would be divided into thirteen parts and every state would follow their own laws. The power the government has keeps America as one nation. With the checks and balances, no one must fear of becoming a tyranny like we did before.
I am Alexander Hamilton, a federalist and I respectfully disagree with Patrick Henry Lee in period nine who stated that the government would not be effective in total participation. In my opinion this statement is false because there have been significant changes made so that there will be another disappointment like the Articles of Confederation. The Executive branch now has the power to do things such as collect taxes or go to war with a different country but will still be held in check by the other two branches of government. This person also said that without a bill of rights the government can take away certain rights but having a bill of rights would also limit the citizens rights so both sides are losing.- Matt Smoot period 6
ReplyDeleteChris Period 1 John Jay/ Brenden Period 2 George Clinton
ReplyDeleteI John Jay disagree with George Clinton because the Constitution does not need more revision. History says that all of the small republics of the past have been destroyed by selfish groups. We have a system of checks and balances that will assure that no branch is getting too much power. The president cannot make a decision without congress agreeing so the president does not have as much power as you think he does. There is no need for a bill of rights because of the checks and balances. By voting the people in we pretty much make the decisions for our country. The Bill of Rights is a very bad idea to have. If this country has a Bill of Rights we will go down in flames si it is a bad idea.
I am Alexander Hamilton a federalist and I strongly disagree with period four's George Mason for a number of reasons. This anti federalist explained how our state governments would be overpowered by the national government and how the federal government will take advantage of this. We need a strong central government that may have to force certain states to do things that they personally do not agree with. When the articles of confederation ruled our nation the states did not feel like obeying the demands of out federal government and we were left with a country that had basically no central form of leadership. We can not risk another crisis like that even if it means getting are hands dirty and pushing he state governments to do things that they may not agree with.-Matt Smoot period 6
ReplyDeleteMelanchthon Smith believes that if the Constitution were to be passed the executive branch would gain too much power . This wont happen because there are way to many checks from the branches to make sure no one gets to much power. Also the president cant pass a law unless the branches check if its fair. And I think that really all the branches are equally important, so one cant do anything without the other. I, Alexander Hamilton believe the constitution is good on its own so therefore it doesn’t need a bill of rights. Dilan, pr: 4
ReplyDeleteGeorge Mason Kyle of Period 4-
ReplyDeleteI am John Jay, a Federalist, and I disagree with you to an extreme that cannot be put into words. All of you silly Anti Federalists believe that the government will become to powerful like King George did, but sorry, you’re terribly wrong. A system of checks and balances has been instated into the U.S. Government, which holds each branch of government from turning into some sort of tyranny or monarch. You later say that the government will become distant from the population… incorrect. The people in their state choose the people of the government, and just because it is one central area don’t mean that they will drift from America. They are the leaders of America, and the last thing they’d do is be separated from their communities just because of their patriotism and commitment to this wonderful new land. In the end, I believe that the Constitution does not need a bill of rights and should be made official with no ifs ands or buts.
-John AJ Gold Jay P. 6
Melanchthon Smith Caroline of Period 4-
ReplyDeleteI am John Jay a Federalist, and I disagree with you severely on the fact that a bill of rights is crucial to the Constitution. Your first ‘argument’ states that our country will fall into a tyranny or a monarchy because the government will become too strong. You do not know this as a fact, and also, the system of checks and balances will be in place, which restrains any branch of government from over powering the others as well as the country. You later state that the Senate will take advantage of our wealth. This is unproven because again of the system of checks and balances which oversees our three branches of government. In the end, I see where you’re coming from, but many of your complaints are already covered, which is why the Constitution should be ratified without any changes made.
--John AJ Gold Jay P. 6
I George Washington once again disagree with the anti-federalist George Mason. You say there is almost a monarch in the constitution because of the one president and that it is like England’s king. Now there you are wrong because the constitution gives the congress and Supreme Court ways to check the use of the power by the executive branch, so it cannot be a monarchy. Currency, trade, and defense are things that only a strong government can handle. Then you also said the government could abuse its power. This is not possible because the government’s power is limited.
ReplyDeleteChris Period 1 John Jay/Caroline Period 4 Melanchton Smith
ReplyDeleteI john Jay disagree with Melanchton Smith because he is nervous that without a bill of rights the government will completely take over. That is why we have a system of checks and balances. It makes sure that the government will never have too much power and the government cannot take over our country. History proves that the past times that if you have a small republic you will be destroyed by small groups. It cannot become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and seperation of powers. With a bill of rights the country will be destroyed and the power will not be equal throughout the government. We need a strong government to deal with these problems.
As a federalist I, Alexander Hamilton would like to oppose a comment made by Melanchthon Smith my classmate in period six. This person feels that everyone should be created equal and I diffidently think there are some flaws to a system that incorporates complete and total equality. I do believe that every citizen should have equal rights and freedom but as past failed systems indicate, humans need some form of leadership and a figure of trust to rely on. Also, the constitution in its current form would give our citizens liberty and still have a strong inspirational figure that would not have an excess amount of power. All in all this Constitution could give us the best of both worlds. -Matt Smoot period 6
ReplyDeleteJacob
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Dear Patrick Henry Lee,
I have read your argument and disagree with your ideas. The government could not become a tyranny as you state. Citizens will have freedom because every few years politicians will be re-elected by the population so they won’t be able to stay in power for long. The government cannot decide to take away our freedom because the other branches of government can stop that with the checks and balances system. Also, the national government will be able to deal with issues over the whole country. Issues within states will not be dealt with the national government so they don’t have to worry about that. The Constitution is fine as it is.
Jacob
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Dear Melanchthon Smith,
I strongly disagree with your statement. There will be no chance for, as you say, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The executive branch of government has clearly defined powers; to enforce laws. It cannot turn into a monarchy because each branch is responsible for different things. This is checks and balances making sure no branch has too much power. The government cannot become a monarchy.
Federalist
ReplyDeleteDavid P
Rebuttal to George Mason Pd. 9
Pd. 9
3/1/10
George Mason, in your letter, you state that there should be a bill of rights and the Constitution will cause another tyranny. As a matter of fact, I agree and disagree with your statement. I do agree that the American people should have a bill of rights. As a result we will know what rights we do and don’t have. In addition having a bill of rights will make it easier to solve conflicts with the government between other citizens. However, I do disagree with your statement about the Constitution another tyranny. For instance, the Constitution gives the government certain limits on what they can and can’t do. In other words, the government can’t do whatever they want. The government will have to pass the law through other government officials in order to pass a law. Therefore having a Constitution and a bill of rights would make America have a significantly better government.
Jacob
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Dear George Mason,
I strongly disagree with your argument. The national government will not get more power because they are only dealing with issues that have to do with the whole country. They will not bother the state government because they are dealing with things within the states individually. The power of the national government is limited. They don’t need more checks and balances because they already have a system that works fine. No branch can take over another since they all have specific powers. The Constitution doesn’t need change.
Claire L. / George Washington rebuttal to Caroline M. / George Mason
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution is not too large; it protects the rights of the people without having to state every right. The powers the government are limited, so no one branch of government has too much power over the others. Common people also have a say in how the government is run by electing senators from each state to represent their needs in the government. If the 13 states had more power than the national government, our country would not be united. Every state would be following different laws and we could not work together as a nation. If we were attacked this way, we would not be able to make decisions for the fate of our country quickly. The army for America is only helpful because we can protect ourselves if the need arises. The government would only declare war on another country if the need was very great and there was no other way to settle the dispute peacefully. The government and the Constitution we have in place will only help America in the future.
Audrey period 1
ReplyDeleteI, John Jay, a federalist, would like to argue with Patrick Henry Lee(Charlotte) and say that the Constitution should most definitely be ratified. You say a bill of rights is needed to protect the people’s rights, but this is not true because the Constitution puts specific limitations on what the government can do. Also, the people don’t need specific privileges because then they would only expect to have those freedoms, and would expect nothing else, which is not what they deserve. You also say that the executive branch gets too much power under the Constitution and can easily become a monarchy. This is false though, for several reasons. The people have the power to vote for the president and vice president, so they wouldn’t choose somebody who would become tyrannical. If that were to happen, though, then those persons would be impeached by the senate. Also, the other two branches check on the executive branch to make sure it doesn’t get too powerful. It’s fair to be afraid of another monarchy, and it’s true that the executive branch gets a fair amount of power for a smaller amount of people, but the Constitution includes many rules and regulations that the executive branch must follow, such as the senate having to approve all the president’s appointments and treaties and such. I assure you, the Constitution is the proper way to run America.
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.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison
Sean Period 1
I am a Federalist and my name is John Jay (Kristen). My rebuttal is to George Mason (Virginie). You are saying that the national government is a lot stronger. This is true but as you know the separation of powers and checks and balances keep it from becoming a tyranny. Also having a leader, know as our President, is very different from having a king. The President is just voicing the words of the people, unlike a King who makes all his rules based on his opinion. The bill of rights is not needed to be added to the Constitution. Our leader has no way of becoming a tyrant because of how we set up the Constitution. By adding the bill of rights the people may think that this is needed because we are not trustworthy and this should not be the case. In conclusion, the leader cannot become a tyrant and the bill of rights should not be added because it is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree that our constitution will make us fall under tyranny again. The constitution makes sure everyone’s rights are protected by checks and balances. Each branch has a certain amount of power. The system of checks and balances will make sure that no branch becomes too powerful. An example of the checks and balances is that the legislative branch can impeach the president or leader if he doesn’t follow the rules of the constitution. Since the people elect the legislative branch, the people have a say in the government. They won’t elect someone who doesn’t follow the rules because they value their rights.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison
Sean Period 1
Your argument says that this democracy is too large to be effective and have all thirteen colonies cooperate. I think this is a perfect argument for a central government. We need to work together as one nation and make decisions together. It would be hard for us to move forward as a country if we didn’t work together. States will always think of themselves first. We need to help each other as one. The most important thing we need in a central government is checks and balances to make sure nobody gets too much power.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison
Sean Period 1
In response to George Mason, that’s exactly it, we don’t want another King George III. The US Constitution Limits the powers to the three branches of Government. The system of checks and balances lets each branch have the power to override the decisions from the other branches. So, the executive branch does not have more power than the other branches, they are equal. Then, that means, tyranny will not happen because of their limits of power. Also we will be able to keep what we won, the rights we deserve.
ReplyDeleteHannah Pd. 6
Melanchton Smith, I completely disagree with you. You say that the Constitution contains too many details, yet not basic ideas like a bill of rights. You also state that “But with no formal bill means that it is in the power of the government to remove these rights at their will.” This is completely wrong. The Constitution has a system of checks of balances, so that all the different representatives have to approve the law before it passes. We vote for these representatives. So, the only way that the government could take away our rights is if we voted in corrupt representatives to each branch of government, as if we voted it away ourselves. And even though that is possible, it would be just as easy in the same case scenario to remove a bill of rights. If the Constitution were to go into detail about a bill of rights, it would be a waste of ink and paper, along with the time it would take to make it. Time is crucial. If we can work out a new government, the better for it to be ratified as soon as possible so that it can fall into place and set it self into our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteMac Reddy Pd.6
Katie/James Madison period 9 responding to Mike/Patrick Henry Lee, period 1
ReplyDeleteOur Executive Branch is not too powerful, because there are checks and balances to assure the people that no decision is made without everyone’s consent. It is more or less, impossible to abuse such tightly structured government. When writing the document people made sure to leave no room for loop holes. This new form of government was created by the people for the people, therefore there be no need for “a document to give equal power to the people and safety against this new government”, because this new government is a great thing and it is perfect. How could the people be protected from a government whose sole purpose is to serve the people, the checks and balances are designed off of what the people want! The citizens are the entire reason behind the creation of the document.
In response to Melanchthon Smith, the US Constitution is about the limits to the government. There are the five principles of the Constitution. Where there is a principle of limited government. The limited government is stating that the government is not as powerful because it is only allowed to do what the people say it can do. So, government will not get out of hand with power. Also a bill of rights should not be included in the Constitution even though it doesn’t list the rights to the people. A bill of rights would be too complicated and the people have too many rights to write down. Also if a right doesn’t get written down then the people will assume that it is not a right when it clearly would be.
ReplyDeleteHannah Pd. 6
Dear Melanchthon Smith,
ReplyDeleteI John Jay a federalist, disagree with many things that you have previously said. First we have made sure that the president could never gain so much power that he could create a tyranny with the checks and balances, therefore eliminating the possibility of a dictatorship. Also the same applies to the Congress we have limited their possible power. Lastly a bill of rights would cause more problems than it would solve, because it would only cover the rights that are listed there would be some Americans that feel as though they don’t count or aren’t important. With all of this into consideration I fully believe that the Constitution is perfect just the ways it is.
Peter 2
Sam Pd. 9/George Washington responding to Nick C. Pd. 2/Patrick Henry
ReplyDeleteAs a Federalist I, George Washington have read your argument of why not to ratify the Constitution and I disagree. One reason you state is that one branch may get too powerful and take over but the system of checks and balances makes it so one branch will not get too powerful. Also you said, “One branch might even take control, given enough time.” This is unlikely because the term of one’s position in the government is very short. Another point is that a law cannot be passed unless the legislative branch makes one and the president approves it. So it would be hard to make a law giving total power to one branch. One thing you bring up is that people will not be able to participate in this type of government because it is too far away but there are many ways you can participate, like voting for the president, the senate and many more positions. The bill of rights is not needed because people might think that the government would only protect those rights and none others.
Jack/John Jay
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
The Anti-Federalists believe that a bill of rights is absolutely essential in order to protect the citizen’s rights from the strong central government. However, a bill of rights is completely unnecessary! The central government’s powers are so limited that citizens should have no fears regarding their rights! A bill of rights would give the citizens the impression that only the listed rights would be protected. If the people thought this, things would not be so great for the national government. I, John Jay, as do all my fellow federalists, truly hope that the Anti-Federalists realize that a bill of rights is absolutely unnecessary.
George Mason (Virginie Period 4) – I, James Madison a federalist do think that the national government does have more power now than it did in the Articles of Confederation but it cannot become tyrannical because of the limitations they have on the entire nation such as trade, currency, and defense. And all branches have the system of checks and balances so they do not become too powerful. The bill of rights is unnecessary because it gives the impression that the people can only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. The people know there rights already and do not have to expect that they want to be protected just in case a leader becomes too tyrannical.
ReplyDelete-Brittany C.
Pd.9
George Mason (Caroline Period 4) – I, James Madison think that the Constitution is not too broad because the necessary and proper and general clauses are necessary if the national government is to the things it is responsible for doing. The national government has limitations and cannot take over the state governments because they have protected rights and cannot be taken over. Also, the Constitution does give the government power to hold an army but they have checks on each other and wouldn’t allow them to pass war if it wasn’t in the best interest of America. Furthermore, the government has limitations on currency, trade, and defense.
ReplyDelete-Brittany C.
Pd.9
I John Jay a Federalist, think that there were some things that Patrick Henry Lee said that were not correct. For instance that our government would have too much power and take over, but this is not possible because of the checks and balances. Also when he said that the national government would be too far away to any help but the point of having the central government would be so it could look over all the states without controlling them, so I think a little distance would be a good thing. Lastly is that a bill of rights would help but as many people have said, a bill of rights would only protect the rights that are written down while there are too many rights to be written down. The Constitution does not need to be changed only ratified.
ReplyDeletePeter period 2
Rebuttal 2 Lydia Seaman p.1
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to Ethan Frisch/Patrick Henry
The bill of rights is too unstable, and completely unnecessary. The powers of the government in a bill of rights is way too limited, and makes the national government weak, were as the Constitution would hold our government at a much stronger point, and really be ultimately more effective. Another problem with a bill of rights is that the people of America could only have protection of the rights that were physically listed. Clearly a bill of rights is extremely unhelpful for our nation as a whole.
In response to Melanchthon Smith, the US Constitution is about the limits to the government. There are the five principles of the Constitution. Where there is a principle of limited government. The limited government is stating that the government is not as powerful because it is only allowed to do what the people say it can do. So, government will not get out of hand with power. Also a bill of rights should not be included in the Constitution even though it doesn’t list the rights to the people. A bill of rights would be too complicated and the people have too many rights to write down. Also if a right doesn’t get written down then the people will assume that it is not a right when it clearly would be.
ReplyDeleteHannah Pd. 6
Rebuttal 3 Lydia Seaman p. 1
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to Charlotte/ Patrick Henry Lee
The executive branch would quite simply not be too powerful. It is very necessary that our country have a strong executive branch because it would it would help the national government as a whole fulfill its responsibilities. The powers are separated into three branches, so for the concern, like your own, that the executive branch doesn’t grow too powerful. Lastly, the executive branch would not be able to in any way resemble a monarchy because of the system of checks and balances. All in all it is essential that the executive branch be stronger so that the rest of the nation can fully function.
George Mason, I disagree with you. No branch of government will ever have too much power because this is not possible. The checks and balances put in place ensure that this will never happen. If any one branch even becomes close to having the slightest bit more power, the other branches will immediately check them to make sure they do not abuse their power. The three separate branches share power so no one branch will become tyrannical. If we add a bill of rights to the constitution our rights will be limited and the government can take away any right that we do not end up listing. I believe the constitution should be ratified just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Pd. 6
I disagree with what Melanchthon Smith says. He thinks that the Constitution should have a bill of rights, but if we put a bill of rights in the constitution, that will limit our rights. Also the bill of rights would give the impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed. As the anti-federalists say the bill of rights is essential for protecting individuals againts the power of the national government, although there powers are seperated and balanced among the three branches so no one can dominate.
ReplyDeleteCarly Friedman
period 1
I am Federalist John Jay (Kristen) am responding to George Mason (Kyle). The government has very clear limitations listed in the Constitution. It also contains many systems preventing any part of the government to take control. The government won't become seperated from the people as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. "We the people," is the very first words of the constitution. This shows that the people will have the power and will control the government equally. Therefore, the people are the government and are not only in one area. Also although the main government may be far from some state governments it will be easy to communicate with the different parts of government everywhere. We did break off from England because we had no say in how we were ruled. This cant happen because the people are represented under the Constitution. The Constitution should be ratified without a bill of rights!
ReplyDeleteSara H. (Alexander Hamilton) Pd. 1
ReplyDeleteTo Patrick Henry Lee,
In the Constitution all branches have equal powers. There is not one branch that has a power over another without being checked by the third branch. These checks and balances were created for a reason and they do a good job of what they are there for. With this government there is no way any branch can overthrow another. Any branch can stop the others from become any more powerful than the others. There is no way the executive branch can become too powerful is because the other two branches both have the power to impeach/remove the president. The Congress declares impeachment and the Supreme Court justifies their decision.
Kelly /George Mason
ReplyDeleteIt was stated in the Constitution that the government would have checks and balances to keep one group from getting too much power. You said the executive branch will reserve too much power and therefore we will become a tyranny. It could not become a tyranny because of the limitations placed. Also the national government would be so good at protecting the rights of the people that it would soon gain their loyalty and support.
Carly Friedman
period 1
George Clinton he claims that the national government’s laws are superior to those which belong to the states. That is not completely true. Its powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade, currency, and defense. The constitution provides adequate protections for the state governments to prevent their being destroyed by the national government. This is from i George Washington
ReplyDeleteCarly Friedman
period 1
Jack/John Jay
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
The Anti-Federalists believe that the national government would be located so far away from most people’s communities to allow them to participate. However, the national government would gain the people’s loyalty and support by being so great at protecting the people’s rights. The Constitution has made sure that the national government could not become a tyranny at any costs! That is what the Anti-Federalists do not understand! The Constitution has made sure that the people have the power to participate. Therefore, we absolutely must ratify the Constitution, as it is, right now!
George Mason, I George Washington disagree with you. Having a president in this government will not be the same as King George. The king was the only one with power, but in our government there are many other people that make decisions also. The president is only one of many other people on one branch, and there are two other branches that also have power. The president cannot make decisions without consulting with the other members in his branch and they have to agree with him before anything can happen. I think this Constitution should be ratified without a bill of rights or any other changes.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Pd. 6
Sara H. (Alexander Hamilton) Pd. 1
ReplyDeleteTo Patrick Henry Lee,
The federal government can in no way take advantage of its citizens. There is a reason we have three levels of this type of government. There is the local government, the state government, and the federal government. Each can take care of it’s own citizens each at a different level. Local protecting the basic communities, state dealing with taxes and such, and the federal dealing with common defense and nation wide issues. With each of these governments no citizen will have his or her rights taken away from them.
Sam Per. 9/George Washington responding to Edwin Per.2/Melancton Smith
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your argument I am at a disagreement. One reason is that you say that the executive branch would get too powerful and it would become a monarchy. But how would they become more powerful? The president cannot make a law they can only approve, and at the same time the legislative branch cannot approve laws they can only make them. Also you would need enough power to override an entire society let alone a country, our national government has limited power. Also considering there are three branches if they wanted to have all power they would need at least one person from each branch but the chances of all of them being elected by the people would be slim. Without corrupt people the government cannot be corrupt.
Rebuttal to Patrick Henry Lee/ Alex pd.1
ReplyDeleteLook Patrick, the Constitution already states all the information in your argument. The citizens don't need a bill of rights because all of their rights are documented in the Constitution. Also while we were english colonies we had to representation in parliament so it was easy for them to take advantage of us. We the people vote for the senators and house members. We also vote for the President. So we have representation. It won't be another tyranny
Jake Pd.1
In George Mason’s argument, you say that we must the Constitution does not include the Bill of Rights. But we shouldn’t because that is unnecessary. Under the Constitution the government will be limited power. Therefore you shouldn’t worry that the government will get too powerful and disobey the people’s rights. They can only do what is written in the Constitution. Of course this would give the impression that the people would only expect protection of the provided rights that are given.
ReplyDelete-Brittany B period 9
I disagree to what Patrick Henry states/believes. Of course we decided to break from Great Britain but that was for our advantage. When we break away we are gaining freedom and independence that is needed to create a more stable and strong government. None of the branches will dominate since we have organized the system of checks and balances. This system provides the equal power that is distributed to each branch. This would be important because a strong government provides a strong country. – Brittany B period 9
ReplyDeletePatrick Henry from period two claimed, “ the government will be located too far away from people’s communities for them to participate.” As a Federalist completely disagree with this statement. The Constitution is built upon the idea that the people have control, as said in the preamble, “We the people do ordain and establish the constitution for the U.S.” Citizens participate by electing government officials to serve in the national government, and with this system distance is not relevant. People also participate by electing state officials to represent them on statewide matters. In addition, citizens can vote in a direct democratic system on decisions that affect them locally. Therefore, by creating these levels of government, people can participate actively and be represented by whom they choose, regardless of their location. ~Sarah pd. 6 (John Jay)
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to Melancton Smith/Edwin pd. 2; by James Madison/ Aaron Wenta pd. 2
ReplyDeleteMelancton, you said that the executive branch will soon turn into a monarchy, but this will never happen because of checks and balances between the branches. The legislative branch can check and object what the executive and judicial branch are doing and the other branches can do the same. The branches all have a say in what is done in the government. So there will not be any “corrupt officials” because of these checks and balances. The president can’t become like King George because the legislative can override with 2/3 of the vote, and the president just has the job to approve laws and legislative makes laws and they control the ruling. So there is no way that the executive branch can turn into a monarchy.
Rebuttal to Edwin Pd.2/ Melancton Smith
ReplyDeleteMelancton, there is no need for a bill of rights when the rights of the people's rights are already stated in the Constitution. The Constitution also has the exact jobs of each branch in the government and their job to protect the rights of the people. Absolute power may corrupt, but certainly not in this case. The executive branch has to little of power to corrupt. Besides approving laws, appointing supreme court judges, and making peace treaties their is very little they can do. The legislature branch must pass the law first. Then the president can approve it. If it is unconstitutional then the supreme court will deny the law. Officials will also not take advantage of anybody because checks and balances are done within each branch to make sure no-one is abusing their power. Also if they do they will be impeached immediately and be removed from office.
Jake Pd.1
Rebuttal to Leia/Patrick Henry Lee; by James Madison/Aaron Wenta pd.2
ReplyDeletePatrick Henry Lee, you stated that “the government is going to have too much power and this will result in another King. This cannot happen for two good reasons, checks and balances, and voting. These let the legislative check and approve the other branches, and the other branches approve the legislative. This means that the president cannot do anything that gives him too much power and the legislative can make unreasonable laws. Also, citizens have the right to vote, so they get to contribute in law making. So the government can’t tell everyone what to do because they get told what to do by the people. So there is no need to put a bill of rights in the Constitution because there is no possible way the government can overpower. This is because of checks and balances and the right to vote.
Rebuttal to Patrick Henry Lee/ Anna; by James Madison/ Aaron Wenta
ReplyDeletePatrick, we still have are rights with the Constitution, we can vote on most of the laws that are made, and the checks and balances makes it so the branches stay equal and organized. We can vote on the laws that are being made by congress, and they can’t do anything other than what we say so we do have rights. Also, the executive branch cannot make laws only approve/veto so they don’t really have that much power. So basically, the laws are made by the people and Congress, and then are approved by the president. So the people do have their rights with the Constitution. There is no need to include a bill of rights because the people still have their rights and contribute greatly in the law making .