Bill Of Rights Necessary Essay
Starting:!OK so I’ll think of a good hook, and you revise evidence and add “persuasive devices”
We can all agree that the god given natural and fundamental rights is what the government lives to protect. To ensure that the common people’s rights are not abused, the continental delegates created many specific content in the Constitution regarding the protection of people’s rights. As a Federalists, we strongly believe the Bill of Rights is unnecessary.
Evidence 1:
To begin with, you must understand that the Constitution creates a president, not a king. A king has unlimited power therefore making a Bill of Rights necessary in order to protect the common people’s rights. A president, on the other hand, is different. The president’s power …show more content…
For example, no post facto laws, guarantee of a trial by jury and many more. Another document isn’t needed because it would just be a list of all the rights the Constitution already protects. Any rights not included can just be added.
Evidence 4: There is, however another reason the Bill of Rights didn’t make sense to officially be included in the Constitution: it might be dangerous to list them. As time passes, people’s ideas of their rights may change, and changing it would be a hassle. It is also possible for the Bill of Rights to leave out some fundamental rights, which might be hard to add.
Counterclaim:
The anti-feds say that the Constitution was unacceptable without the Bill of Rights. That is not the case. As I stated before, the Constitution already covers most rights. This makes the Bill of Rights unnecessary.
Conclusion: Federalists or not, we share the same goal: to establish a government that would support our growing country’s citizens and the overall benefit of the entire nation. We can all agree that the rights of the people should be valued greatly. In fact, I find the idea of a Bill of Rights proposed by the anti-federalists fine. However, the Constitution already has laws protecting the rights of the common people to be relied upon, so I, along with my fellow Federalists, agree that the Bill of Rights is
We can all agree that the god given natural and fundamental rights is what the government lives to protect. To ensure that the common people’s rights are not abused, the continental delegates created many specific content in the Constitution regarding the protection of people’s rights. As a Federalists, we strongly believe the Bill of Rights is unnecessary.
Evidence 1:
To begin with, you must understand that the Constitution creates a president, not a king. A king has unlimited power therefore making a Bill of Rights necessary in order to protect the common people’s rights. A president, on the other hand, is different. The president’s power …show more content…
For example, no post facto laws, guarantee of a trial by jury and many more. Another document isn’t needed because it would just be a list of all the rights the Constitution already protects. Any rights not included can just be added.
Evidence 4: There is, however another reason the Bill of Rights didn’t make sense to officially be included in the Constitution: it might be dangerous to list them. As time passes, people’s ideas of their rights may change, and changing it would be a hassle. It is also possible for the Bill of Rights to leave out some fundamental rights, which might be hard to add.
Counterclaim:
The anti-feds say that the Constitution was unacceptable without the Bill of Rights. That is not the case. As I stated before, the Constitution already covers most rights. This makes the Bill of Rights unnecessary.
Conclusion: Federalists or not, we share the same goal: to establish a government that would support our growing country’s citizens and the overall benefit of the entire nation. We can all agree that the rights of the people should be valued greatly. In fact, I find the idea of a Bill of Rights proposed by the anti-federalists fine. However, the Constitution already has laws protecting the rights of the common people to be relied upon, so I, along with my fellow Federalists, agree that the Bill of Rights is