Written by Zainab
Gentlemen, I, Patrick Henry, present myself before you all today for the sake of our county. Though we may stand in differing positions, it is essential that we eventually see reason.
Being a lawyer and politician, I have spoken righteously at the Parson’s Clause, won election to the House of Burgesses, and insisted against the Stamp act in 1765. Furthermore, I’ve voiced my thoughts at the Continental Congress, fruiting nothing if not desires for the liberty of our people (“Patrick Henry”). Gentlemen, I fear nothing if not the implication of misery to the people of this country; the ratification of this flawed Constitution will do just that. Not only does the Constitution unfairly grant power to the federal courts, but it gives the federal government an excess of power, does not include the Bill of Rights, introduces the risk of an aristocracy, and allows the federal government to regulate commerce (trade). For the greater good of the people of this country, the proposed Constitution cannot be ratified.
To begin, the Constitution calls for a stronger federal government, paving the way to recreating the British Tyranny that we sacrificed so much to abandon. This possibility of a political corruption is at the expense of the state governments, leaving the people with a smaller say in matters. As George Mason had stated, “There is a Passion natural to the Mind of man, especially a free Man, which renders him impatient of restraint” (“George Mason”). The possibility of an oppressive federal government threatens the liberty of the people, ultimately endangering the ideal government we’ve all dreamt of for years.
Likewise, the Constitution grants too much power to the federal courts, at the unfortunate expense of local and state courts. The federal courts are unfortunately “...too far away to provide justice to the average citizen” (“The Judicial Learning Center”). This proves to be a handicap in providing justice to the average American citizen. The constitution grants the federal courts the power of “...judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy” (“The Power of the Federal Courts”). If the state and local courts were to be granted this power, justice would be much more accessible on a larger scale, considering that there are a greater number of state and local courts.
In addition to this, the Bill of Rights is nowhere suggested in the Constitution. This puts the people's’ rights at a great risk of being questioned. This means that the natural rights are also excluded from the proposed Constitution, leaving space for question. The people’s rights need to be ensured; including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution would protect the people against unfair acts like “Excessive bail or fines, cruel and unusual punishment, [and] unlawful search and seizure” (“The Anti-Federalists”).
Additionally, the Constitution suggests the possibility of an aristocracy. This centralization of power indicates that the democratic goals are not a top priority, creating the illusion that “...the government was going towards the evils of monarchy and aristocracy”(“The Anti-Federalists”). This is especially frightening at such a time, for the majority of our population belongs to that of the lower class, who live outside the cities and worked on farms for a living (“The Ratification Debate”).
Finally, the issue of the federal government controlling commerce is set on the table. Rather than allowing the federal government complete control over trade, certain and specific regulations and policies should be made based on the individual, unique needs of each state. Instead, the proposed Constitution includes the risk of the federal government abusing its power to unfairly benefit certain states. George Mason argues “...that any commercial regulation laws passed by the U.S. Congress should require a three-fourth, supermajority vote in both the House and Senate” (“Who were the Anti-Federalists?”).
Considering all of these points, it’s evident that the proposed Constitution does not adequately fit the needs of both the federalists and the anti-federalists. The next step we need to take is clear; we must amend this Constitution so that both the federalists and the anti-federalists can agree on ratification. The power to the federal courts, overall power to the federal government, the question of including the Bill of Rights, the risk of an aristocracy, and the question of allowing the federal government to regulate commerce are all to be taken into consideration as we amend the Constitution.
Zainab’s poetry and short stories have appeared in many prints. She is a 13-year-old writer from Idaho who loves historical fiction and sci-fi!
© 2018 elysianmuse.com