The Differences Between The Vermont And U.s. Constitutions

A Constitution is a document which consists of regulations and laws which govern a state or country. In the United States, Federalists and Antifederalists contributed greatly to the scope of American’s political, constitutional, and democratic history. For example, Federalists strongly supported the Constitution and played a key role in helping to shape it from the 18th century with a hopeful aim of strengthening the government. On the opposite side, Antifederalists opposed the constitution and fought for it to be amended. Antifederalists have always been dominant in western and northern New England, the Hudson River Valley in New York, Western Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. It is also very rampant in the south side of Virginia, upcountry South Carolina, and North Carolina. The “middle-class” community, which was mostly comprised of farmers, was fully against the constitution (Allen & Lloyd, 2001).

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

Have you ever wonder the process that the Founding Fathers of America had to go through to create our system of government? One of the vital pieces to establishing this government was the famous document known as the Constitution. The Constitution was a highly argued document, because many people were concerned about if it would protect the newly-separated country of america from the tyranny that they had faced with their previous king. The Constitution ended up being the people's’ savior after the delegates signed it in September 1787, and protected them from tyranny in their country even better than before. All and all, the Constitution guarded the United States against tyranny creating a system

Articles I, II, and III of the Unites States Constitution outline the importance of dividing government into 3 branches, this system was designed by our forefathers to serve the people. With any division of power obstacles are bound to arise, usually when attempting to enact important legislation. Since the US Constitution was written to the present day there has been conflicts between the supporters of a strong federal government and campaigners of states’ rights. This paper will address these three aspects associated with the first three articles of the United States Constitution.

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they wrote them with the future in mind. In the newspaper and TV headlines today, many of the topics in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are even more relevant and hotly debated today than back then. But they each have a different purpose and handle many topics differently. This essay will compare the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in three areas: style, structure, and tone, the topic of religion and government, and the issue of African slavery.

American politics can be a controversial subject with many political struggles. Many struggles arise from the differences in political branches and dysfunctions between the nation and state’s power. This paper will define and contrast the differences between the United States Constitution and Nevada’s Constitution, the differences and similarities between the

The most thought worthy point in this Constitution Day Program was when they mentioned that the only way to truly understand one’s own government, other governments must be studied and explored. Otherwise, everything can be exploited or disrespected in their own government. Throughout the program the main topic that is discussed is the similarities and the differences between the United States constitution and the Costa Rican constitution. With the two constitutions there is only a fifteen to twenty percent difference in them, which may not seem like much but it is enough to make a difference.

, the Early American Republic faced numerous hardships from the beginning. More specifically, the framework, transitioning from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of our multi-faceted government deemed itself controversial. In order for one to determine if the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a major roadblock for American politics, we must analyze both standpoints of the argument. The two major views on this divide were the Federalists and Anti- Federalists. Federalists, predominantly landowners and industry workers, enjoyed the control by a strong, central government. On the contrary, Anti- Federalists, predominantly backcountry farmers and debtors, were already on the verge of tyranny

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.