ok so after i did the reading the argument seems a little more black and white. It seems obvious that the anti-bill of rights argument will be that each state has a bill of rights so it's unnecessary for the federal government to have one as well
Brutus says the liberties Americans enjoy would be in severe jeopardy without a written guarantee and that the state constitutions dont provide adequate protection
A question to ask them i think is why are these liberties necessary in the state governments and not the federal government, the one that makes laws for the entire country? The federal government also controls all of the militias so it should have rules that apply to all and not just on a state by state basis. I was also thinking that it would be so much easier to just have one final bill of rights, and not have separate individual ones because who knows what each state's bill of rights contains, people wouldn't know their basic rights in each state. And can the Bill of Rights be amended? If so then since the federal government has a checks and balancing system it would be almost impossible to change the Bill. But couldn't state bill of rights change, and thats why its dangerous? Finally the bill of rights would give power to the judicial branch to enforce its restrictions on government actions.
Im just shooting out ideas but hopefully some of them are helpful, im out of my house until late so i probably won't be able to post again until really late, but ill check back and see what you guys wrote. _________________ Cam Bauchner
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:50 am Post subject: I will post more later, i promise!
ok guys,
i can't post that much now but i will come back and post later....
but a few thoughts. like cam, i agree that it is an argument about state by state rights vs. having rights that govern our country. one counter argument against us will be that this is taking away the rights of states but we can argue that power must be given on a federal level to all citizens in all states in order to MAINTAIN power by the people for the people. This does not take away power but instead creates an overarching set of amendments that will help us govern well and have basic human rights...
"such a concentration of power further removed from the people than the state governments, they argued, placed the peoples rights in jeopardy if they were not explicitly provided for us in a bill of rights." (27.) This bascially means that we only believe the constitution will work well and govern well if we have something protecting human rights that EVERYONE must follow regardless of state beliefs and powers. if we have the constitution, this is necessary.
Those are my thoughts for now...
Also, I think we should look at how being pro bill of rights connects to being anti-federalist or federalist.
also, i think we should use info from the web and textbooks if we have them because we might find some great quotes.
I agree with Cam and Jesse about state vs. federal being the main point of this debate, especially on the side of the opposition. I think an important point to make with that as well is that, according to Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This goes with what Cam said about not knowing the states' individual bills of rights, and their predisposition to unregulated editing (can we get a guarantee that state bills of rights are easier to change? I think that would strengthen that point), because even if all laws are in agreement with the Constitution at the time of passing, they could change and conflict, leaving dangerous loopholes when federal cancels out local.
Also, although earlier in class I warned against arguing this as a "basic human happiness" or otherwise unquantifiable issue, I've found a pretty undeniable source to use as a given: the Declaration of Independence, and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as "inalienable rights" (if I'm quoting right). Now if we can find a way to draw an undeniable conclusion that the rights protected under the Bill of Rights can fulfill this stated goal for the American government, as set down by the Founding Fathers, AND that the Constitution on its own can't, that's pretty much our argument right there.
I'm going to continue reading the packet material -- anyone up for looking at the other side's material as well? I'll try if I have time.
P.S. Jesse, I think the parallel to the Anti-Federalists is important, so further investigation is great. The only downside I can see to bringing that dimension in is that it might draw the discussion away from our other arguments, and I think we want to stay there as much as possible, since it's starting to look like our side is going to get a lot of good material.
To answer the continuing question of whether the Bill of Rights is federalist or anti-federalist, I will cite a passage from Brutus,
"If everything which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this constitution anywhere grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post fact laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers, which the bills of right, guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this constitution." (p35-36)
Which is to say, explicit laws (i.e. the bill of rights) help restrict implied power such as the potentially abusive Elastic Clause, thereby limiting federal power and establishing a compromise between both parties (Pro & Anti Federalist)
I think we should exploit the elastic clause as much as possible on the basis that its implied power may be abused if not limited by enumerated powers/restrictions.
For reference, here is the elastic clause,
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Last edited by MattBurckardt on Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:14 am Post subject: Opening Statement
I have a tentative opening statement (that is entirely open to editing) to suggest. I figured I would just post it now:
The Constitution establishes a government that promises to run smoothly for many years to come. The bright outlook for success of this government rests in its ability to balance itself, spreading power not only among its three primary branches but, at a thinner level, to every voting U.S. citizen. So much depends upon these citizens, the men who select our officials and, in doing so, indirectly run this country. With such a large portion of the power of our government vested in these people, it becomes an issue of the common interest as to their wellbeing.
A Bill of Rights would guarantee the people the rights promised to them by this country’s founding document – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While the Constitution has set a framework to foster an environment in which questioning is encouraged and debate and dissent invaluable, the protections that are reserved to the people should they take the government up on its offer of constructive criticism currently exist only in a scattered local capacity; the state bills of rights. Not only do these individual bills differ in the levels of freedom they grant, they are given an inferior power under the Constitution to enforce that meager security, under Article VI: should Constitution clash with state guarantees, the Constitution would win, and rightly so, as it is national law.
If the issue cannot be with the inherent supremacy of the Constitution, it must be taken up with that discrepancy where state and federal clash. It is then necessary to take the best of the state laws and attach them to the Constitution, resolving the conflict and securing the rights of citizens under national law. Standardizing basic rights over all states is also in the spirit that the Constitution itself was written in: that all laws, unless they are of local concern, are better regulated and executed by the resources of federal power. And who can argue that such human rights as freedom of speech and security of property should be doled out on a state-by-state basis?
Finally, the addition of a Bill of Rights to the constitution would serve to protect the people from their government in the event of corruption or tyranny, or any consequential misuse of power, and in the words of James Madison, “should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury”.
After reading some of the Anti-Bill passages, I've picked up a consistent argument that the other team will no doubt use:
That enumeration of powers may be vague in description, and therefore nullify their usefulness for limiting implied power, and possibly, create implied power.
This argument could easily trip us up if we don't handle it carefully, as it makes us look like hypocrites.
The only counter I currently see is making sure that we have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights itself so they can't stump us with a question like Alexander Hamilton poses,
"What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? We need to be able to answer or counter questions like this. (Unfortunately, I think this question is unanswered to this day, especially when it comes to question what the press can publish. Especially if it happens to be slanderous, of questionable sources, or any thing along those lines.)
Ok I seriously think this is great, great, great!! I am going to be picky as an editor, just to make the sentences as clear and short as possible so that they are as easy as possible to understand when listening…
Thinner level: I would change that to BROADER (distributed broadly among citizens)
I would change the second sentence: I don’t totally understand who “the men” are?
The success of the young government depends on the white landowning citizens who select our officials and indirectly run our country.
End of third sentence change: It is our duty to protect their wellbeing and in turn the government’s wellbeing
The Bill of Rights would gaurentee to all the people the rights first promised to them in the Constitution: Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I’m not sure that the constitution did set up a framework for dissent and questioning so I might disagree with that part of the second paragraph.
While the constitution set up a framework for government, it failed to create an environment in which the people being governed could be active and engaged citizens and could hold the government accountable for it’s actions. Currently, this only exists in scattered local capacities, state bills of rights.
The Bill of Rights will establish a uniform federal code under which certain rights and priveldges will be gaurenteed to all citizens irrespective of which state they live in.
I question.... When you talk about the clash between State and Federal laws, doesn’t this often go before the Supreme Court? I just want to clarify….
When the state governments have different laws that clash with federal laws, sometimes the constitution cannot resolve these. We argue in favor of a bill of rights to secure the rights of citizens under national law.
Great last sentences!! This is how my edited version reads in full:
[b]The Constitution establishes a government that promises to run smoothly for many years to come. The bright outlook for success of this government rests in its ability to balance itself, spreading power not only among its three primary branches but, at a broader level, to every voting U.S. citizen. The success of the young government depends on the white landowning citizens who select our officials and indirectly run our country.
With such a large portion of the power of our government vested in these people, it is our duty to protect their wellbeing and in turn the government’s wellbeing. The Bill of Rights would gaurentee to all the people the rights first promised to them in the Constitution: Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
While the constitution set up a framework for government, it failed to create an environment in which the people being governed could be active and engaged citizens and could hold the government accountable for it’s actions. Currently, this environment in which citizens can be freely engaged only exists in scattered local capacitiest through state bills of rights. The Bill of Rights will establish a uniform federal code under which certain rights and priveldges will be gaurenteed to all citizens irrespective of which state they live in.
When the state governments have different laws that clash with federal laws, sometimes the constitution cannot resolve these. We argue in favor of a bill of rights to secure the rights of citizens under national law. Standardizing basic rights over all states is also in the spirit that the Constitution itself was written in: that all laws, unless they are of local concern, are better regulated and executed by the resources of federal power. And who can argue that such human rights as freedom of speech and security of property should be doled out on a state-by-state basis?
Finally, the addition of a Bill of Rights to the constitution would serve to protect the people from their government in the event of corruption or tyranny, or any consequential misuse of power, and in the words of James Madison, “should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury”
Okay, most of those edits work well towards getting the meaning across (I get pretty wordy), and I think we should keep 'em.
(The men: I originally wanted to say "the men and women", then I put 'women' in parenthesis crossed-out, then I realized that i had to be true to the times. I like your change there, though.)
(I think that in the case of a clash of state and federal, the state laws just have to be disregarded, as a good judge would see to, and if they're not the case could be taken to the supreme court to be corrected, I assume?)
The only place I have an issue with is the third paragraph: what I meant, more specifically, is that the Constitution sets up a system where checks and balances actually help the system function; hence, a senator revealing the flaw in a law being debated would lead to the law being fixed (if others agreed), rather than the senator being shot in the night. I just wanted to give the constitution credit for creating that environment of back-and-forth. The distinction comes when citizens decide to use those rights -- the first amendment protects them. So we can discuss it more tomorrow, but I would say, for that paragraph:
While the constitution established an environment wherein dissent is tolerated and valuable, a bill of rights would protect citizens who took advantage of that right to criticize. (or something to that effect -- again, let's go over it tomorrow)
Also, the start of the next paragraph:
When the state governments have different laws that clash with federal laws, sometimes the constitution cannot resolve these. We argue in favor of a bill of rights to secure the rights of citizens under national law.
I think this is a little too general, as we have Article VI at our disposal. Maybe, "When the state governments have laws that clash with the constitution, the constitution automatically wins, under Article VI." I think it's an important distinction, since the basis of one of the other side's arguments (in the packet) is that the state laws still have power, but in actuality they're at the mercy of the federal gov't.
Otherwise -- great catches (and a great job of simplification) and thanks for the vote of confidence.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
