Argumentative Essay: Should The Constitution Be Ratified?
During the summer of 1787, 55 men gathered in a hot, humid hall to craft what the most influential document of their era, the United States Constitution. This document was extremely radical and there was a lot of debate about whether this unconventional type of government is what was best for our country. Before the Constitution, were the Articles of Confederation which provided a very weak central government. This embodied the ideals of the new Americans, which were strong state and individual rights. However, this plan was eventually scrapped because it was nonfunctional due to the weakness of the central government. The Constitution was seemingly at the other end of the spectrum. Was is too similar to the government in Britain, which Americans fought to get away from? In a word, yes. Although the Constitution had some nuanced ideals, it should not have been ratified because states rights were not properly defended
…show more content…
One good idea that was brought up in the Constitution was the separation of powers. Ultimately, the constitution provided too much power to the federal government, but the separation of powers was a step away from a government like a monarchy. The separation of powers allowed the separate branches to check and balance each other, so no one branch was too powerful. This is argument made of why the president isn’t like a king. Under the Constitution, even if the President vetoes a bill, Congress can overrule the veto. However, the President could serve as many terms as they wanted, which is similar to a king. Although the Federalists implemented checks and balances into the system, the government under the Constitution was still formed in a way that the wealthy ruling class would be put into positions of power. So even though the Constitution had good ideas, it was ultimately elitist and too similar to the British
One good idea that was brought up in the Constitution was the separation of powers. Ultimately, the constitution provided too much power to the federal government, but the separation of powers was a step away from a government like a monarchy. The separation of powers allowed the separate branches to check and balance each other, so no one branch was too powerful. This is argument made of why the president isn’t like a king. Under the Constitution, even if the President vetoes a bill, Congress can overrule the veto. However, the President could serve as many terms as they wanted, which is similar to a king. Although the Federalists implemented checks and balances into the system, the government under the Constitution was still formed in a way that the wealthy ruling class would be put into positions of power. So even though the Constitution had good ideas, it was ultimately elitist and too similar to the British