Bill Of Rights In Schools Essay

Yet, to most people at the time the Constitution created an effective central government and federal system, “…Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of America…, but by the people at large… The existing system has been derived…whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people”(Document 8). James Madison included the statement above in his speech defending the Constitution, for he believed that the Constitution was a document by the people and for the people. What’s more was that he believed the Constitution provided a balance between the states and federal government that no other document had ever did

In the past students did not know the guidelines of what they could say at school,but the students at Des Moines brought attention to the rights of every student at school(Blacher 10). Things changed in the 1960's many students wore black armbands to school as a way of protesting the Vietnam War (Blacher 11).The Des Moines school banned them from wearing their armbands(“Case summary:Tinker”1). Mary Beth and John Tinker believed it was their constitutional right to be able to express how they feel(“Case summary:Tinker”1). They decided to take their case to the courts. case went all the way to the supreme court(“Case summary:Tinker”1).

James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions.

My perspective on this case is that the student was still a representative of his school at the football game and the principal had the right to take action against his acts. Taylor Murphy claimed that, while on school property, the event was outside of the school day and he was acting as a free and public individual. In the case Morse v. Frederick, he may have no been “in school” but he was on school grounds and Morse v. Frederick states “pupils who participate in approved social events and class trips are subject to the same student conduct rules that apply during the regular school program.” Even if Murphy didn’t realize it, he associated himself with the school by wearing his school varsity jacket, so it was clear to the public that

“Richard Henry Lee’s Objection to the Constitution” and James Madison’s “The Federalist No. 51” contend about the positive and negative effects of the Constitution. Both essays are important documents for early American history, and both contain valid points. James Madison, however, presents the better argument with his diplomatic, content, and logical approach. “The Federalist No. 51” begins with a question about how America can properly divide government power (Madison 1). Madison believes the Constitution is the answer because it gives the foundations and tools to keeping the power of the government for the people.

When the delegates of the 1875-1876 Texas Constitutional Convention came together, their main priority in drawing up a new constitution was to restrict the amount of power the state government had over Texans. After Texas suffered thought the corruption that occurred under the previous governor, Edmund J. Davis, the delegates wanted to ensure that a similar situation would never happen again. The first step they took towards that goal was writing a bill of rights, which would be the first article of the constitution. This article ensured that the people’s rights would be protected from the government such as “guaranteed liberty of speech and press, the right of the accused to obtain bail and to be tried by a jury, and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.”

In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.

Roxi Wessel Professor Anderson Political Science 232 17 March 2023 The Federalist Fallacy: Popular Authority Under Elite Rule In the fall of 1787, three men embarked on a quest of words and wits to push for the ratification of the new United States Constitution in the state of New York. Collectively known as “Publius”, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison used their 85-essay series, entitled the Federalist, to defend the constitutional approach to government, justifying choices as broad as centralized government and as narrow as the presidential age requirement. However, one of Publius’s central arguments–that the final political authority of the United States, under the Constitution, will reside solely with the people–falls

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

To Madison distrust of public engagement and concern for private rights “must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice” created by faction within public administrations (Madison,

“Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government.” (http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/). This quote means that anything the federal government does not control, the states would control. An example of this would be the Tenth Amendment, which is anything that is not controlled by the federal government went to the control of the state. The southern states pre-civil war favored this amendment because it gave them the control they wanted over slavery.

Representatives of two states petitioned for the wording to specifically limit the federal government’s power to those expressed within the Constitution. Such a severe limitation would deny the federal government implied powers needed to successfully complete its duties under the Constitution. James Madison rejected the idea, as he strongly believed that limiting the powers of the federal government would be impossible and the work that needed to be done would never get done. When questions arise over what the government is responsible for, what the states are responsible for, or any issue. For instance, questions about how important road signs should look is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is a state power.

1st Amendment and the College Campus Have you ever wondered why some college campus protests are shutdown even though the first amendment is in place? The first amendment does not always protect in every situation. The first amendment wasn’t enforced much until the 1960’s and 70’s, when the anti-war and gender equality protests first started. College campuses have a right to impede on the first amendment if it is restricting someone else’s rights. In many cases some protesters will block off an entrance to an event or will start to harass people walking past.

One with checks and balances to protect citizens from falling back into an absolutist form of government. Rights were seen as things for the government to protect, even on occasion from itself. The Bill of Rights, written by James Madison, declared citizens as free from the government, while also placing restrictions on governmental power. Government was now seen, not as apart of the people, but as an operation that serves the people. This differs from the previous views of the monarchy in England, where the people served the monarchy.

Author's name and Qualifications The Bill of Rights is a formal document that has the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; so the author of the ninth amendment was James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights. On June 8, 1789, James Madison went to the U.S. Congress and proposed a series of changes to the new Constitution. He argued that the Constitution wouldn’t be complete unless amendments were added that would only protected an individuals' rights. One of his qualifications was that Madison had gone to preparatory school and then to college at Princeton.