But there is a great chance this bomb could have been avoided. Japan was willing to agree to surrender as long as Emperor Hirohito was allowed to remain in power. The Truman administration was adamant that Japan agree absolute surrender, and proceeded to drop the a-bombs. Following the unconditional surrender the same administration allowed Hirohito to remain in control over the nation! This all reads me to believe the bomb had little to with Japans surrender and more to do with testing our nuclear capabilities and showing other nations that we had the brass b---s to use them.

Japan would have agreed to a conditional surrender before the bomb was dropped. All they wanted was to keep the same executive power in office. After the 100,000 plus were killed and Japan surrenders unconditionally the United States lets Japan continue under the same rule! None of this had to happen. Japan was on its knees with no chance of victory over the U.S., let alone the entire group of allies.

I have to say dropping the bomb was unjustified at the time. If Japan's allies were still a threat then I could see that using the bomb could threaten the Axis' power, but at the time the bomb was dropped Japan had no chance of winning a war. One of Truman's justifications of the drop was that Japan did not agree to an unconditional surrender. Japan refused because they wanted to keep their ruler in power, but after the bomb was dropped an the unconditional surrender was reached we ended up leaving with the same executive power as before. It was a senseless bombing that, yes, struck fear in the heart of other nations, but also gives reason for other countries to justify using nukes on us in the future.

I believe that before you criticize the Constitution and ask for a Bill of Rights, you should take a look at the document in question. The system of checks and balances that you are referring to is already granted to you under the constitution. You can find the Separation of Powers listed under Article 1 of the document.

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!