Gorn Chapter Essay Example for Free

Gorn Chapter Essay What powers awarded to congress in the Constitution of 1787 would an Anti- Federalist be most likely to oppose? Anti- Federalist were against the Constitution all together but most of all, I think the Anti-Federalist were against the fact that the state government’s would no longer have as much power like it did with the Articles of Confederation. The constitution supported the idea of a powerful and strong central government. The congress had the power to tax people, and make rules and regulations as it says in document two. With liberty being the Anti-Federalist’s biggest argument, the federalist got the idea that with all the power congress had, their freedom and rights would be threatened or even taken away and that’s what they feared most. 2. According to the Constitution of 1787, what are the eligibility prerequisites and selection processes for a) members of the House of Representatives Members of the House of Representatives are chosen every two years by the people and the number of representatives each state gets is proportional to the population. The members has to be twenty-five years of age or older, has been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years and shall not be, when elected, an Inhabitant of the State in which he is representing. b) members of the Senate, and Each state has two senators serving a six year term. In the Constitution of 1787, the senate was appointed by the Legislature and must have at least one vote. Members of the Senate must be 30 years of age, been a citizen of the U. S. for nine years, and should not be an Inhabitant of that State. ) the president and vice president? Both the President and Vice president serve in the same term of four years. The person running for president and vice president had to be a citizen of the United States for 14 years and naturally born in the U. S. and they had to be at least 35 years of age. The president had to have a majority vote for a guarantee to be president if not the House of Representatives chose in other situations. 3. Critique the provisions co ntained in the Constitution of 1787 from the point of view of each of the following groups: I think all together the only people who felt they would benefit from the Constitution was the smaller populated states and the African Americans. The smaller States would gain more of a say then being overlooked by the larger States, although in the Constitution they would only have a few representatives for their state, it still was a good outcome because they would at least have some sort of say and opinion in what laws were passed due to the power of their representative’s votes. The Constitution’s main goal was to make sure all states were equal and with that being said, it led up to the African American’s being free and gave a sense of something they had never felt, which was equality. The Anglos and Native American’s had to have a sense of anger because not only did they feel like their territory was being taken away, they also now had to have treaties with America if they were beyond the boundaries of the States, in order to trade or do any business with the U. S. The larger states were probably not as approving of the Constitution because with the greater amount of population in their states’, their governments got to do whatever and all the people had to follow their rules they set for themselves. In the Constitution, Congress is given the power over the whole Country, if a state wanted to make something a law or tax people, they had to get the approval of congress. 4. In which of the six objectives designated in the preamble has the Constitution of 1787 lived up to its promises? In what areas has it not fully achieved its goals? The Constitution was truly meant to be looked upon as a good thing, it was not suppose to cause any harm or uneasiness in the States. I think out of the preamble, the Constitution did eventually achieve success in all six objectives but the biggest issure that most Anti-Federalist had was the constitution not establishing justice or secure the blessings of liberty. If you really think about how the Constitution was made, it was illegal. The writers were only allowed to fix the Articles of Confederation, not make a whole new Government. I think that’s why Anti-Federalist were not convinced about the Constitution because it was done out of secrecy and the writers did not allow for the Anti-Federalist to make a common ground and make the Constitution mutual on both sides, that alone made it seem like the writers were just trying to take over America and make rules that seemed to take away the rights that were important to them. In the Constitution there were specific laws for people’s safety, different forces were to be formed in case of any attack or just to promote general welfare. Although, the army had not been figured out yet on how each state’s army would form together, the idea of the forces coming together for safety was in tact. 5. If you were a delegate to a state ratifying convention, would you have voted for or against the Constitution of 1787? Explain the reasons for your vote. If I was a delegate to a state ratifying convention, I would have voted for the constitution of 1787. The United States were at the point of time were reformation was needed. Although many people at the time were against the Constitution, I think overall it put the United States in a more successful path compared to the problems they were already facing as a nation. At the time prior to the Constitution, State’s had set there own laws that were to be abided by which made the outlook on the country as a whole, unorganized. The United State’s needed a more stable government, with the Articles of Confederation, it was basically like there was no government or any uniformed army in place in case of any attacks from other countries. The Constitution made the United States come together in the long run and a good authority with a fair amount of power was needed in order to get America straightened out. 6. Did the writers of the Constitution of 1787 desire to create a democracy or aristocracy? According to what I read, I think the Constriction of 1787 was desired to be a aristocracy government. It was not until the Bill of Rights came into Constitution that made the United States a democracy. The constriction was first made with no checks and balance system which made the strong central government, have more power than it has today. The government in the Constitution had the power to do many things that the Anti-Federalist felt shouldn’t have the right to have. Many of the people living in the state’s felt their unalienable rights were being taken away slowly so many Anti-Federalist decided to push and continue to get the Bill of Rights passed so the government wouldn’t gain too much power, that everyone felt they wanted.