Essay 3: The Feds

-----Sometime during the 1990s, the team captain of a football team had some of the best players in the league on his team, but they didn’t cooperate because each player was trying to get glory for himself. The team captain didn’t like the fact that they didn’t play together and tried to show them an example of how playing together can benefit them. At half time their team met together for discussion, and the coach gave his demonstration. He took out one pencil, and broke it in half. He later took out 13 pencils and tried to break them but couldn’t because they were too strong. All he said after that was, “If you play by yourselves, you will be beaten and broken, but if you play together, you will be strong and nobody can defeat you.” A similar situation happened during the 1800s. Some of the states, the Federalists, wanted to ratify the constitution and unite into one big country, while the others wanted to stay as states and grow by themselves. These Anti-Federalists states believed that the Constitution needed to have a bill of rights, that the executive branch and the national government had to much power, and that this unification under one government would overpower the individual identities and powers of the state governments. Georgia supported ratification because it created a large collective nation, which they believed was paramount for protecting independent rights. The Federalists believed that the connected states would be a stronger nation that better protected individual rights.
-----The Constitution promoted better protection for each state through the whole nation. One of the primary arguments anti-federalists used in their favor was that they were against the fact that in the ratified constitution, the nation had the right to hold an army during peacetime. For the growing states, ratifying the constitution would be a good idea because at the rate they were expanding, they would run out of room in the remaining states. This means that they would have to press upon the Indian lands, which would cause conflicts that would require a military. Even if the states banned this pressure on the borders, people would still push against the boundaries, as shown in previous conflicts. Without an army, they would have no protection and many innocent lives would be lost. Having an army during peace time is crucial to the states for the safety of its residents. For example, Georgia found it very important to ratify the constitution. The reason for this was, "Georgia sought the protection that a stronger national government would afford against hostile Indians and Spanish Florida to the South" (The American Promise pg. 275, paragraph 2). It was bordering enemy territory, and having a large national army would greatly help them in times of danger. This army would serve as the most important and primary defense against immediate and serious threats. If the states ratified the constitution, then their army would be very large in numbers and strength, protecting the nation, and the freedom of the citizens.
-----The check and balance system was the superior form of rights security because one did not have to list out individual rights, which would allow the government to find loopholes, but instead used the governmental actions themselves to hold itself in place. The check and balance system that was outlined in the Constitution, places the 3 branches in control of one another; the legislative branch controls the budget, pass laws, and impeach officials from the other branches, the executive branch can veto legislative acts and also nominates judges, and the judicial branch can declare executive acts unconstitutional as well as declare legislative laws unconstitutional. The Federalists knew this to be correct, as shown in this excerpt from a collaboration of their points, "The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all" (http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html). This system does not actually require any Bill of Rights at all, because the regular, every-day work in the branches follows the check and balance system; their jobs are to maintain the country, and by doing this they maintain each other. Not only is this system effective without a bill of rights, but also would be worse off with one. This point is proven by the fact that evil people do exist (by evil I mean those who are willing to break ethical boundaries to achieve power) and that these people have a chance of getting into the government. These people could use the concrete statements of rights in the bill and then find ways around them. This is actually possible, since these rights could not change with the times, being written as basic building blocks of the government. By not being written, the rights could be enforced by the branches, and if these malicious people somehow got into the government, they would be unable to find loopholes around an ever-changing right (these changes would be fueled by the people, not the actual government). This system of checks and balances held the government in a way that it could not free itself from the people’s control. The same dangers were also prevented by putting this effective system over the states.
-----The constitution brought the states together as one, but it also gave them their individuality. One of the most important factors of individuality in the states was the ability to set up their own laws. The state could control everything within itself. The state government was picked by the citizens in the state, not by the national government. The government controlled the schools, trade, and infrastructures. They could decide what would be built, where, when, and how, they could set laws picking what could be traded and with whom, and they could control how much money was put into the schools, who can attend, and who would teach in the schools. They also controlled the land where the citizens could live on. The national government still controlled most of the state, but that didn’t mean that they overwrote the laws of the state. Some of the government officials were there solely to represent the state in Congress, which prevented the state rights from being squashed by the national government: two were sent to Congress, and a number of representatives went to the House of Representatives, depending on the size of the state. This system of representation is plenty enough, which was also believed by the Federalists, "...Senate (with two representatives per state) adequately represented state interests" (http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf). The National government can still pass laws that affect the state, but these laws are more widespread, where the state laws are more specific. These abilities allowed them to maintain its individual identity, while also staying under the policies and rules of the national government.
-----The ratification was the better choice for protecting individual rights, not as separate states but as a nation. The United States Constitution increased the amount of physical protection, by defending and supporting the individual and their rights. They did not create a list of rights because there would be loop holes. The check and balance system left it to the actions of the branches of the government to hold themselves in place. States had their own identity, but still were a part of one nation. This created more stability and security for each state. If the ratification of the constitution never occurred, our country now would probably not have as a sufficient government as it does. People’s rights would probably not be protected to the extent they are, and they would be divided. As Abraham Lincoln said “United we stand, and divided we fall”.

(Who done what:
Intro + Paragraph 1: Sergey
Paragraph 2 + 1/2 Paragraph 3 + Overview: Brady
1/2 Paragraph 3 + Conclusion: Kerri)