The Bill of Rights and Constitution Essay Example

The Anti-Federalist papers embodies the sense of individually rights. The rights of the people in the country. Anti-Federalist believed that the government was too strong and didn't protect the rights of the citizens. While Federalist believed that the government needed to be stronger and they already gave the citizens rights and protected them. So, the anti federalist have a great argument on why the government have to much power and not enough of individual rights. 

So, Anti-Federalist believes that the constitution is a like a building and that with the bill of rights added it can change the future. In paragraph one it stated" When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid". This means that the constitution is meant to be a foundation so you can build around it. The constitution shouldn't limit the anything instead it should be used as a source to make things better.But, with this being said the only thing about building things around the constitution is the make sure that it's constitutional. 

Also, The Anti-Federalist papers point out all the weaknesses in the government. In paragraph two Dewitt stated that the government constantly uses there power to oppress individuals and use the government for private purposes. Stated in paragraph two Dewitt said " they are as likely to use the power with which they are vestediv for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed". Dewitt said this because he felt that the government has too much power and he's right. The government shouldn't oppress there civilians or use the power of the government for personal usage. 

But, The Federalist papers points out a lot of things wrong with the bill of rights. They tried saying it was unconstitutional. In paragraph three of the Federalist Paper NO. 84 they referenced the constitution to show how the bill of rights could potentially be unconstitutional.For example they stated that the"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulationsii between kings and their subjects" Which is saying that the bill of rights are a agreement between the people and the government. But, later on in the Federalist papers they said that the bill of rights have no application to constitutions. Which means the bill of rights have no purpose in the constitution. 

Therefore, the bill of rights should be included with the constitution. It values the rights of the civilians while the government still have a good amount of power. Both the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers had good arguments, but the anti-federalist made great points.The constitution shouldn't restrict anything instead it should be used as a foundation of the american life. The bill of rights protects and values civilians and give the government power.