Bill of Rights: Protecting Individual State and Citizen Rights - Essay Sample

Introduction

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual states' regional differences and citizens' rights. Each state is different in the same ways that every American citizen is various. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the uniqueness of each person by ensuring that they are treated in a dignified manner. The Bill of Rights touches on specific elements such as freedom of worship and freedom of speech. Usually, these characteristics will differ among the residents of different states in the United States, and they are all protected under the Bill of Rights. Therefore, each state is flexible to ensure the application of the Bill of Rights about the needs and uniqueness of its members.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Regional and personal experiences played a significant role in shaping the arguments that were offered by both federalists and ant-federalists. Each group championed for its interest based on where they come from, the expectations of those regions, and personal experiences. For instance, most anti-federalists come from areas that felt threatened by the central government in case the Constitution was rectified. They were, therefore, aggressive in opposing the idea of the establishment of a stable national government and weak state governments.

The federalists put forward the advantages of a central government while the anti-federalists presented its disadvantages. Federalists argued that a central government was beneficial in that it would contribute to the wellbeing of states. For instance, it will be responsible for addressing both internal and external threats such as foreign invasion. A robust national government will also encourage cooperation between individual states hence fostering economic growth. However, anti-federalists were concerned about the excessive power that had been bestowed on the central government, Congress, and executive. They argued that such power would compromise the liberty and independence of states.

The adoption of the Bill of Rights had its pros and cons. The anti-federalists, who were the main proponent s of the Bill of Rights, argued that it was necessary to secure the rights of American Citizens. The Bill would provide a framework that every person was bound to follow hence preventing the violation of individual rights. The federalists had a different opinion regarding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Hamilton argued that having a bill of rights will create the impressions that a person's rights are only those that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. He further argues that the entire Constitution served the role of protecting the rights of the citizen, and therefore the Bill of Rights was not necessary.

There were different ethical choices that were made by federalists and anti-federalists regarding the central government, checks and balances, and the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Federalists argued that a stable central government is crucial in ensuring security and economic prosperity. Furthermore, checks and balances would foster independence between the three arms of government. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, argue that the central government will impede the liberties of individual states. According to federalists, the Bill of Rights was not necessary since its creation will limit one's rights to those spelled out in this Bill. However, anti-federalists argued that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was necessary to ensure that these rights were clear. The arguments offered both federalist and anti-federalist were equally convincing. The addition of the Bill of Rights was especially essential for clarity purposes. However, the emission of the Bill of Rights was not enough to reject the entire Constitution. Generally, the arguments that each side presented were primarily influenced by the objectives that each side wanted to fulfill.

Reading views belonging to individuals with opposing arguments leads to tolerance. Both the federalist and anti-federalists side presented strong evidence. Reading these arguments enables an individual to reflect on the ideas offered by the opposite side hence evaluating their validity. Eventually, this reflection results in appreciation of the other side's point of view and the initiative to come up with a compromise. This is the kind of compromise that occurred between federalists and anti-federalists, leading to the adoption of the Constitution with accommodation of views offered by anti-federalists such as the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution did go against individual forms of government in the United States. Previously, each state was independent and conducted its function without much interference from the federal government. However, the introduction of a central government meant that the federal and state government had to work collaboratively. Therefore, the state government was less potent than it was before the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution also changed the composition of the government. Previously, under the Articles of Confederation, the national government consisted of a single legislature without the executive and the judiciary arms of government. The new Constitution changed this composition by creating three independent arms of government, executive, legislature, and judicial.

Furthermore, the legislature changed to a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives

Conclusion

In conclusion, many factors come to play during the ratification of the Constitution. Federalist and anti-federalist conflicted over different issues. Two of the main issues that fueled the debate between the two sides were the lack of Bill of Rights in the Constitution and the proposal for a central government. Federalist felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary while anti-federalist were opposed to formation of a strong central government arguing such a government would excessive and dangerous power. Eventually, the adoption of the Constitution led to the creation of a government that differed from previous forms of governments in the United States.

Bibliography

Anti-federalist paper 51. "Doc checks and balances secure the rights of the people." Accessed April 7, 2020, from http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/51.htm

Anti-federalist paper 17. "Federalist power will ultimately subvert state authority" Accessed April 7, 2020, from http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/51.htm

Anti-federalist paper 23. "Certain powers necessary for the common defense can and should be limited." Accessed April 7, 2020, from http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/51.htm

Anti-federalist paper 2. "We have been told of phantoms." Accessed April 7, 2020, from http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/51.htm

Anti-federalist paper 3. "New constitution creates a national government; will not abate foreign influence; dangers of civil war and despotism." Accessed April 7, 2020, from http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/51.htm

Anti-federalist paper 7....