Essay Example on Historical Context of Ratification Debates

The ratification debates were held during the transition to the U.S. constitution from the previous Articles of Confederation. The development was not as seamless as fixing the challenges that were in the Articles of confederation involved a sequence of lengthy debates as the convention proceeded and even after the convention. The particular thing was that there was a need for change; in pursuit of the change, fifty-five delegates met in 1787 for a constitutional convention to adjust the existing document. The Article of confederation had six weaknesses that needed to be changed. The failings included; every state had a single congress vote despite its size, congress lacked the power to tax and regulate interstate and foreign commerce, lack of executive branch to enhance implementation Congress Acts, and lack of national court system. There was also a need for a unanimous vote in amending the articles of confederation, and 9/13 majority law requirement in passing the laws (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 1993). These weaknesses resulted in interstate conflicts that the delegates tried to solve in the ratification debates during the constitution drafting.

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

Order now

Chapter six entails debating the constitution and covers various speeches from the ratification convection in New York. The delegates of the Philadelphia Federal Convention knew their meetings would result in controversies. George Washington, who presided over that conference, turned into an observer as New York turned into a ratification battleground after clear communications that the convection should not revise the Articles of confederation but replace it. The ratification supporters were federalists whose backgrounds were commercial and urban. The federalists argued in favor of the constitution as they believed it would bring better, stable, and centralized union amid states.

Apart from the need for centralized unions, the issue of taxation was also discussed. The federalists wanted the federal government to have taxation powers to enhance its financial independence and to be in a position to pay t its domestic and foreign debts (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 1993). The federalists made the most famous constitutional commentary consisting of 85 editorials as a way of propagating the ratification campaign in New York.

The antifederalists countered this act by producing pamphlets and editorials. The federalists from all states came from less wealthy and rural backgrounds; hence were likely to be debtors as thy practiced subsistence farming without commercial food production. The antifederalists opposed the constitution because it very much resembled the British Crown, which never presented the ordinary people. They also feared that the tax burden would be left to the middle and lower classes by the monopolization of power by the rich. Besides, their fear was heightened by the constitution's lack of a bill of rights.

The ratification convention in New York's Hudson River Town made the constitution to appear dead on arrival.it was chaired by an antifederalist, Governor Clinton, and had 46 antifederalists out of the 65 presents (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 1993). New York voted for the constitution, causing profound implications across the U.S. as eight states had ratified constitution at the opening of the New York Convention. Before the formation of the federal government, ratification had to be done by 9/13 rules. The federal government would, however, not prosper without New York because it was an essential geographical link for communications and trade activities between the south and New England. Regardless of their numerical superiority, the antifederalists in New York did not want to see their state split; hence did not reject the constitution. The constitution drafting was done in secrecy and took months, after which every state conveyed particular convection to pass the constitution's judgment.

The debates are also covered in the critical constitutional concept film. The film has three parts that comprise the creation of the constitution, the changes made to the structure Gideon v. Wainwright, and the checks and balances explained by Youngstown V. Sawyer, respectively. The first part of the film reveals that the need for a constitution resulted from the challenges presented by the Articles of Confederation, which enhanced friendship between states and vest nearly all powers to the Confederation Congress (Dellums & Todd, 2006). The power was, however, limited as the central government carried out diplomacy, set measures and weights, made war, and was also the final dispute arbiter amid states.

The second part focuses on Gideon v. Wainwright, which was a case argued on January 15, 1963, and the ruling made on March 18, 1963 (Dellums & Todd, 2006). A petitioner was charged in a state court in Florida with a noncapital felony. He appeared in court without counsel due to lack of funds and requested the court to appoint a counsel for him, but the request was declined as that was only applicable to capital case defendants. The petitioner, therefore, conducted his defense and was sentenced to a jail term of five years. He then sent an application to Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of his rights by the conviction. The case was reversed, and the cause was remanded as an indigent defendant should be assisted by a counsel in criminal trials for a fair trial (Dellums & Todd, 2006). His trial and conviction did not involve any counsel; hence his constitutional rights were violated according to the 14th amendment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ratification had two sides made of federalists and antifederalists. The former pursued ratification of the constitution while the later did not. The primary point of contention between the two sides was the bill of rights inclusion. The federalists viewed the addition as necessary, arguing that the constitution did not limit the people, but only the government was limited. Their opponents, however, argued that the law empowered the government too much-risking people's oppression if the bill of rights was not included. The federalists finally conceded and announced their willingness to make amendments, which would then become the bill of rights. Without the initiative, the constitution may have never been ratified by states.

References

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1993). Key Constitutional Concepts [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/key-constitutional-concepts/

Dellums, & Todd, E. (2006). YouTube [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/CKy2ri4q1So