Fundamental Rights of the Individual Essay

The forefront of American politics was drastically shaken at the turn of the American Revolution as the monarchial order once imposed on the Patriots had finally collapsed. The implementation of the Articles of Confederation into the states bestowed a great sense of independence that had never before been experienced while under British rule. The Articles of Confederation served its purpose by launching a political structure which opposed a monarchial system and defining what that meant to the people. Despite the inherent flaws of the Articles of Confederation, this newly adopted governmental structure established a mission statement of American politics which still exists in our government today: the power of the fundamental rights of the individual. The states had gained true independence under this confguration and this ideal was something that many opponents of the ratification of the Constitution were refusing to sacrifice. Implementing a central government would shift power from the newly sovereignty of that states that had not been easily obtained and this ignited a fear of possible â€Å"tyranny of the majority’ if the Constitution was eventually ratified. Submitting to a Constitution meant that they would have to place a sense of trust into a strong central government and this was not something taken lightly. Facing a declining economy amongst other problems brought on by the Articles of Confederation, something had to be done to remedy the unforeseen issues between the states. Both federalists and anti-federalists induced a great debate through the means of numerous publications released to the public prior to the ratification of the Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that: all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the goverened† (Dolbeare, 59). This pivotal statement became the crux of the ideal that the opponents of the Constitution had feared losing. The opponents to the Constitution would not waive this notion of maintaining the power of the individual to secure rights that they found to be rightfully theirs after the overthrow of the British Crown. Due to the fact that many of the federalists held positions of power, there was a vast amount at stake for the opponents to lose if the Articles of Confederation were to be redefined into a system that may not emphasize state’s rights. The above passage contains one of Jefferson’s most quoted, ambitious statements as its meaning has evolved through time and played a great role in shaping what we now call the American Dream. For instance, today, society has the evolved the meaning that all people of this nation are created equal and not Just the Caucasian, property owning men. In this doctrine, hese rights professed by Thomas Jefferson are not Just subject to certain groups; rather, all people, who may have separate interests, fundamentally have the right to express and lobby for the endorsement of interest. ajority’ as they lay out and define the checks and balances in within the governmental system that would be in place by the Constitution. For example, the federalists outline that the proposed branches of the government would have power to compel one another. For instance, the Supreme Court holds the power to interpret the constitutionality of a law put into place by the federal government, the pre sident ould have the power veto a proposed bill from the legislature, and the legislature would be able to override the president with a two-third majority in each compartment. Pitting these powers against one another would keep them in check and ensure that the majority would not solely hold the supreme power. In the Federalist No. 39, â€Å"The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles,† advocating for the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison references the conditions of the adversaries of the Constitution: â€Å"They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of overeign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States† (Madison). Madison acknowledges that the opponents refuse to let the formulation of a national government to take too much power from the states. The opponents view the Constitution as transforming the federal form of government that the Articles of Confederation had been intended for to national form of government, thus making the citizens of the states subject to that national power rather than only subordinates to their respective state. However, Madison elaborates: â€Å"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States† (Madison). In this passage, Madison argues that the under the Constitution, the central government will contain both elements. For instance, if the states vote to go through with the ratification, this ill be a federal act, not an overarching national act of tyrannical power. At this moment, the states are seen as sovereign bodies, and the ratification would be a â€Å"result from unanimous assent† from the states as well as â€Å"its own voluntary act† (Madison).