Automoderated users, edit
298
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: − Kyle M. To be continued..+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Homework Three Answers - Student Fifteen (view source)
Revision as of 16:11, February 22, 2011
, 16:11, February 22, 2011no edit summary
'''''H1. Would you have been an Anti-Federalist with respect to the Constitution? Discuss.'''''
'''''H1. Would you have been an Anti-Federalist with respect to the Constitution? Discuss.'''''
I would definitely have been an Anti-Federalist. The Constitution did not guarantee a Bill of Rights. Without such a bill I know I would be extremely hesitant to ratify the Constitution. Quote from Patrick Henry’s debate, “you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever.”
'''''H3. James Madison's Federalist No. 10, as discussed in the lecture: can you explain and appreciate it?'''''
James Madison is suggesting that this new form of government would prove better for the people. Especially in stopping a certain “elite group” from being the puppet masters. He describes it as, “the violence of fraction.” I definitely agree and appreciate his vision.
'''''H5. Write about any issue related to this week's lecture.'''''
'''Debate: Was it proper for the delegates to go beyond their authority to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead propose a new constitution?'''
Whatever solution was brought to fix the Articles of confederation needed to be ratified by the states, the way the delegates created the solution is not relevant. That’s why they did it in secret. The Articles of Confederation had failed and something better needed to be established.
Kyle M.