Yes, I agree that the Constitution should be ratified. Who could have imagined in 1781, that over the course of a few hundred years, the United States would become the most powerful country in the world? The ratification put in place a system of checks and balances so that we would not have an oppressive government. The Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible. Hamilton assured the people that the Constitution created the "perfect balance between liberty and power". We as Americans strived to prosper economically and achieve the social freedoms that we had strived and fought for so diligently. We had come to a new land, broken away from England, addressed the issue of slavery, and fought wars against our fellow countryman to achieve this independence. As Hamilton, Madison, and Jay repeatly said, "rather than posing a danger to American's liberties, the Constitution protected them".

How do you expect this country to be ran with the current system of separate State Constitutions? The Articles of Confederation does little to unify our country in making decisions as a nation. Requiring approval of nine states to make a decision is ludicrous, especially when it is rare to see a total of nine representatives show up to our conventions. These anti-federalist views are unjust. A simple look at this new constitution shows not a threat to your liberties, but on the contrary, your liberties have never been more safe. The division of power brought forth by this constitution through its elaborate system of checks and balances makes the political tyranny that you speak of nearly impossible. The time has come to unify our ourselves as one Nation!

We need a Constitution to protect American liberties and a strong national government can protect this freedom. The Constitution will instate a national government under a system of checks and balances which will prevent the branches of the national government from having too much power and ensure that all branches of government are maintaining optimal efficiency. People should not be afraid of a strong national government because of the pure diversity of the United States. There are so many different interests among the American people that everyone's need for power will balance each other out and nobody will be able to take over single-handedly. Do not fear a monopoly of power! All of the states will also be under a common currency which will boost the economic status of American and unify the states in trading with other countries. Unified armed forces will also help protect the entire United States against threat from foreign countries and control. United, America has the strength to stand against anyone as we fought against the British in the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation is too weak, so ratifying a constitution will allow other countries to take us more seriously and help us unite to pay back the debt of war we are currently in. Your liberties as Americans will be protected by this reformed structure of government!

Holly Maag

The Constitution should have been ratified, and the reason being was that the intention was for the Constitution to be assembled and also have the bill of rights fully intact. Obviously, the intentions were good and had the American people stand up for the Constitution. There is no need for a debate, it is the American people responsibility to maintain their rights and keep their government in check, if the government crosses the line. The Constitution was not designed to create a massive government to dictate the lives of Americans. If Americans feel that this is because of the Constitution it is not. In fact, the Constitution is the main protector of the rights that each person has. Ratification is the way to go!

wrong username

Ratification by the conventions of at least nine of the thirteen states. These four stages created the division needed between the elites with the power. The division of power brought forth by this constitution was demonstrated through a system of checks and balances which made the political oppressiveness nearly impossible. Also with the creation of the Bill of Rights a sense of power and protection from government taking over was given to the anti-federalists which helped keep the Anti-Federalists in agreement of new government terms. The ratification of the constitution was led by brilliant men and worked out for our benefit in the history of today, otherwise who knows how the future of America would have ended up.

Debate 1 - Why the Constitution should be Ratified

The ratification of the Constitution took place between September of 1787 and July of 1788 when the Federalists were led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. These men are very well known men in our history for being the ones who argued intensely in favor of ratification, while Antifederalists, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin and Richard Henry Lee argued against ratification. There were 55 men in the court room debating on what move to make but only 40 men signed the declaration of independence. Because of this we had to have ratification. Adjustments had to be made in order to keep the peace as well as divide the power equally between the political parties. Article 7 of the Constitution created resolutions in order to appease both the Federalists and Antifederalists. A convention was held on September 17, 1787 where a four-stage ratification process came into play: Stage 1.) Submission of the Constitution to the Confederation Congress, Stage 2.) Transmission of the Constitution by Congress to the state legislatures, Stage 3.) Election of delegates to conventions in each state to consider the Constitution, and Stage 4.) Ratification by the conventions of at least nine of the thirteen states. These four stages created the division needed between the elites with the power. The division of power brought forth by this constitution was demonstrated through a system of checks and balances which made the political oppressiveness nearly impossible. Also with the creation of the Bill of Rights a sense of power and protection from government taking over was given to the anti-federalists which helped keep the Anti-Federalists in agreement of new government terms. The ratification of the constitution was led by brilliant men and worked out for our benefit in the history of today, otherwise who knows how the future of America would have ended up.

In my opinion, the federalists had a more realistic view of the Constitution than the anti-federalists. The anti-federalists, being advocates of the state government, main argument was that it gave too much power to the national government and not enough to the states, which is actually untrue because with the three branches of government all having the same amount of power, it leaves no area of the government more powerful than the next. The anti-federalists stated that with such a strong national government, it would threaten the right of the people and destroy the principles of the revolution, but it is just the opposite. The federalists were looking to protect the rights of the common people under the Constitution by guaranteeing security without the bill of rights. I must argue that the bill of rights is extremely important, and I feel that it does protect individual freedoms of the people. But the federalists were right when they believed that the only way to fully protect the American citizens was to ratify the guidelines and create rules to live by. The federalists were organized and had the advantage of affiliation with political and social figures. So overall, the process for ratification itself was a struggle. It was a push for two groups wanting to maintain rights, liberties, and freedom to the nation.

I believe, along with the fellow classmates below, that the Constitution should be ratified. The ratification of the Constitution will do nothing but help the country. Yes, some may say that they fear a strong central government but without a group to pull our country together and make choices on behalf of all the people in America all the states would likely be in conflict. There must be a central government that organizes finances, trading, and other issues with other countries. The ratification is necessary for other countries to see us as economically settled. With this being said, there may be thoughts that if the ratification of the Constitution passes that our government will resemble too much of what we came from, Britain, and that the people will not have a say. But this is untrue, because with the ratification of the Constitution it puts in place the checks and balances that are needed to ensure that one person, or people, do not have all of the power. There will always be ways to amend, and stop laws from being passed if they are not wanted by the people. The Constitution should be ratified for the above reason and to solidify our country as one.

After the Revolution, there needed to be order restored in the United States. The writers of the Constitution and the Federalists had the right idea by restoring faith in the government and by also implementing a clear separation of powers through the three branches of government. The first order of business was to clearly distinguish what powers the government had in order to get the country back on its feet. A lack of a bill of rights is not enough of a foundation for the Constitution not to be ratified, although it is a point to be made.

Without a unifying document, the United States of America will be little else than an amalgamation of self-governing countries. Without a more powerful federal government, who will protect this country in times of war? How will currency be standardized? Who would discuss trade and treaties with foreign countries to benefit the country as a whole? And what would keep us unified as any other powerful country is? In order to give the federal government the powers labeled in the constitution, more than the simple majority of the states must agree to its provisions. Along with this, the powers of Congress lie indirectly with the state, through the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress makes the laws, and inevitably, the House will perform their job in accordance to what they believe their state would wish for, while the Senate will focus more on what the nation would want as a whole. The President's main tasks regard foreign issues, such as war and selecting ambassadors. This leaves national issues in the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court - essentially, in the hands of the state and a group of people whose job is only to determine the constitutionality of challenged laws. While Congress's powers would be increased, it is unlikely that the laws proposed by them would significantly harm the nation. Certainly, people of differing political ideologies will have issues with laws that oppose their ideas; however, this is impossible to avoid. As members of the House of Representatives have terms of only two years, they will keep the interests of their states in mind in order to remain in good standing. Overall, by ratifying the Constitution, the states wouldn't be losing much power. The federal government would gain power, but only for the overall good and unification of the nation.

Yes, I believe the constitution should be ratified. The American people had just fought a war to fight for their rights and they did not want an intimidating national government taking those rights away again. What made the anti-federalist so eager to not ratify the constitution was that there was a lack of bill of rights. Although this was the most effective argument, I still believe the federalist were in the right position in wanting to ratify the constitution, and they were more organized in their efforts. The separation into the three branches of government protected the rights of the people, each branch representing a different aspect of the people, and because they are all equal branches not one person could try to overule one another. Listing rights could end up being dangerous, so the Federalist argued it would be better to list none at all. Having a strong central government with equal branches of power is what was needed to make everyone feel equal, and to also feel a sense of freedom that everyone had fought for. I agree the constitution should be ratified, and eventually it was!

If America wishes to preserve the liberties and freedoms that soldiers fought and died for during the American Revolution, it is essential that the Constitution be ratified immediately. For "liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." The very spirit of liberty is, at present, at risk of dying out. The Constitution expands the presence of government only because without doing so, this entire experiment of a young republic run by democratic rule will simply cease to exist. It is only through a more centralized government that true freedoms can be felt for all people, throughout the United States. If what the people of this nation truly want is to be considered an original and unique form of republican government, and prove to Great Britain once and for all that the battles fought during the Revolution were not done in vain, it is necessary to embrace the understanding of a republic as the Federalists do, and ratify the Constitution once and for all. - Quote taken from The Federalist No. 10, author James Madison

Well, I believe at the time might have been some doubts over the ratification of the Constitution, but looking at the road traveled over 200 years later, it is very reasonable to say that the system works, and it works fairly well. The biggest problem under the Articles of Confederations was the lack of a central government, which obviously makes a difference when States are in dispute. In a confederation system a dispute between its members is rarely solved fairly, but rather through force, whether that force political of military. Without the constitution, the United States are not united, but merely territories that work together when convenient, and fall apart when it is not. In other words without the Constitution, the United States wouldn't be the United States.

Early in U.S. history, before the constitution was ratified, the states coexisted with disorganization and sat perilously in danger of imperialistic Europe. The loose alliance that the Articles of Confederation awarded were not enough to create a sovereign nation that would stand the test of time. The states hindered their economy by have different currencies from one-another. The constitution would allow for a federal government that could mint one currency which would increase commerce. The lack of central authority would make large scale issues of war, land development, and expansion contentious. The constitution laid the ground work for the branches of government that could do these large jobs to benefit each and every state. It is important to value freedoms and states rights, yet without this ratified constitution all would be lost in a clamoring fight of emotions.

I have to agree with the Ferderalists on this one. Under the Articles of Confederation, it became clear that a rebalance of power between the national government and the states. Congress was unable to impose laws. The Constitution created three branches of government and a checks and balances system. A stronger national government was needed especially after the failure of the Articles. Though the Anti federalists believed that a stronger government could turn into a monarchy, it was beneficial that they did push for the Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights wasn't needed because they believed everything was already layed out in the Constitution. The Constitution needed to be ratified and the Bill of Rights needed to be included to cover both groups' believes and hope for the U.S.

My vote goes with the Federalists and that the Constitution should be ratified. With the ratification of the Constitution the Federalists could have better implemented the Bill of Rights. This could have helped to change the way the government functioned for many years. With the Bill of Rights came check and balances that until its addition was up for grabs. After the revolutionary war the major fear was that a few individuals could take control of the new union. I feel if the Federalist had ratified the constitution from the get go than the fear of a few taking power could have been set aside. Ratification could have possibly stopped the civil war, simply by addressing issues well in advance rather than waiting for many year to pass to address these issues.

The American revolution was fought to be free from the unjust oppression of the British empire. Independence for the whole 13 colonies was the reward. The Constitution should be ratified because as an newly form country we are stronger as a whole rather than 13 individual states. The formation of a single federal government would grant many of the states its individual freedoms but also would grant them the union that would make this country strong.

My vote goes to ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton said it perfectly when he said that ANY government could become oppressive and that ratifying the Constitution would make tyranny almost impossible. Hamilton also insisted that ratification was not for want of power but for the zealous advocacy for liberty. Religious and distinct interests had many people worried about the stability of America but this is exactly why ratifying the Constitution would be in the Americans best interest. This way no one single religious, political, economical coalition could take control and oppress the rest. Our INDIVIDUAL rights would be sacred and protected.

It seems like many more people are on the side of agreeing with the ratification of the Constitution. Interestingly, there are some people who disagree and they have their reasons for it. Some say that each state works best on their own and they can self govern better than a single government would because they know what is best for their specific state economically, religiously, and politically. To counter this claim as being for the ratification of the Constitution, I would like to say that I believe each state does know what is best for their people, but what is our country supposed to do when people come and go from the different states? If a person commits a crime in another state but they are a resident of another one, who is going to be the judge of what happens to that person? Issues like this come up frequently and without a federal government that has the right to choose some laws as pertaining to the United States as a whole there would be many arguments. We need to have the Constitution ratified for security reasons as well. Each state would spend too much money constructing their own military and talking to other countries, and eventually some states may make treaties with other countries and their may be civil wars if every state is not united as one country with a central government. The ratification of the Constitution will not mean that the states rights will vanish, but that they will be heard by the central government and all states can then work together to make this country the best that it can be.

Constitution ratification debate 2

The American dream is economic prosperity and conquering a continental empire. In order to achieve this dream, the constitution had to be ratified as an empire of liberty bound together the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But not every one of the thirteen states could agree upon the Articles of Confederation, only nine gave their approval of the terms so ratification was most certain the key to resolve all issues of the terms given. During the campaigns to elect delegates, Hamilton, Madison and Jay spread their new political thoughts through the use of newspapers articles, pamphlets and public meetings. The six stages of Ratification of the Constitution helped create reassurance in the American people that new order would be established guaranteeing a better way of governing by dividing power rather than giving it to just one group of individuals. Dividing power evenly between government branches promoted comfort to all in knowing the people wouldn’t be oppressed. Checks and balances was the technique used to divide this power. As Hamilton put it, “the perfect balance between liberty and power” was achieved through the use of ratification at the New York ratifying convention which ultimately developed the American dream.

Sources book pages 248, 263 - 272

It is so important that the Constitution led itself to be ratified. While it was written very well and establishes a balanced government, the Constitution needs to grow with its people. When the Constitution was written, blacks were still slaves and women could not vote. As the country's views as a whole changed, the Constitution had to change too. With a Constitution that cannot be ratified, blacks would not be recognized as real people and women would no longer be able to vote. As a country grows and develops, new problems need to be addressed. These problems may have not existed when the Constitution was first written. For example, our founding fathers new nothing of the world wide Internet. Today there is constant debate over the laws and rules of the Internet.

I agree that the constitution should be ratified. There is a need for the states to work together because by themselves they are too weak to defend against foreign threats. One government is required to unify decisions that deal with international matters. If the states work by themselves then they present a much weaker position than all the states together under a federal government. States have to work together or else America they will lose wars against foreign threats.

Yes, the Constitution should be ratified. The Constitution was created to protect the American people and their interests after breaking away from the Mother Country and fighting for their independence. The Federalists really pushed for ratification. They strongly supported the checks and balance system provided by the Constitution that would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and it then came into effect. The Constitution needed to be ratified to create a stronger government and the three branches through the checks and balance system protect the rights of the people. Additionally, the Bill of Rights was added to protect the people as well.

Yes, I think the Constitution should be ratified because the country was in crisis and is desperate need of a stronger national government before it completely fell apart and was taken over by one of the superpowers waiting to pounce. The lack of leadership, the economic crisis with no way to make enough money to pay off the war debt or provide for an army put the new nation in danger. The constitution was developed to fix the problems of the weak govt. under the Articles of Confederation and to save the nation. I am, however, happy the Bill of Rights was added, so the debate was a win-win for us all.

The Constitution is a jaded piece of paper that does not have any relevance to the 21st century.

It should be ratified because we need strong guidelines to keep our country in order. The constitution contains the rights of the people and we need those rights. An organization can't function without rules. Also, without the constitution, we will forever be in debt to other war expenses. When in debt, no other countries will come to our aid. Without aid, we will be ruled by a kind once again.

It should be ratified because we need strong guidelines to keep our country in order. The constitution contains the rights of the people and we need those rights. An organization can't function without rules. Also, without the constitution, we will forever be in debt to other war expenses. When in debt, no other countries will come to our aid. Without aid, we will be ruled by a kind once again.