the writing of the United State’s constitution in 1787
After the writing of the United State’s constitution in 1787 at the Philadelphia convention, ratification was to follow. Ratification can be expressed as a process that article VII outlines and demands that 9 out of 13 States ought to support and embrace the constitution prior to being used formally (Norton, 1788). To attain this, a debate had to be held against the Federalists who cooperated in the formalization process, and the and those who did not support were termed as anti-federalists.
The anti-federalists depicted that the proposed constitution offered a lot of authority to the overall government while it derives the power of the local state government. They felt that the federal nation would be unable to empower their citizens very well due to the deprived powers. In this regard, the anti-federalists perceived that the nation would be too large to respond to the concerns of the citizens of states and local governments.
On the other hand, federalists believed that the nation has a low tendency to live without the application of the constitution. They further believed that an authoritative federal government was very crucial after the Article of Confederation did not work and thus the need for ratification of the constitution (Norton, 1788).
The arguments of the Federalists met those of anti-Federalists in that the new nation created through the drafted constitution was authoritative, especially by describing that it has many default safeguards, which included the limited nation having powers granted to it by the constitution. The implication of this is that the government had to follow the constitution and safeguard the citizen’s interests at all costs.
Additionally, the Federalists argued that the constitution encouraged segregation of powers of government by dividing it into three equal branches, which each of it having the same powers so that “potential tyrannies could be eliminated” (Norton, 1788). Further, they believed that the drafted constitution offered a system of fairness, which provided the limits to each of the three branches of government and ensure that they operate within their jurisdictions.
The anti-federalists were worried due to the absence of a bill of rights in the constitution. Therefore, they sought to guarantee the protection of basic rights which include freedom of speech through not ratifying the constitution. It is worth noting that the bill of rights was incorporated in the year 1791 to gain the support of anti-federalists. The addition was done after the federalist promised to do so that all of them would ratify the constitution.
During the ratification argument, the Anti-federalists did not support the constitution by complaining that the proposed constitution took away the liberties of the citizens, and moreover, has not provided any hope of protecting the rights of the citizens. Some of the anti-federalists did not support the constitution saying that “A stronger federal government would threaten the state’s sovereignty” (Norton, 1788). Others explained that the proposed centralized nation would inherit the despotism features of government just like Great Britain.
During the push for ratification, the federalists explained various benefits which could be derived from the ratification. Despite the Anti-Federalists being unsuccessful in preventing the adoption of the constitution, it is apparent that their efforts and contributions led to the creation and most importantly the implementation of the bill of rights which protected the rights of the citizens.