02.05 The Bill of Rights

Hello Mr. Russell

I’m writing you so I can address a few recent executive orders in my current resident Florida. The government forced people to evacuate from their homes and citizens were denied the right to bring legally owned firearms to storm shelters. I would like to start by stating that the rights aren’t always absolute, set a limit on where to call actions taken by the government dictatorial and separate those that are justified. The Constitution of The United States safeguards are not in place to limit individual rights, but to protect those rights of the people. The limit individual rights put in place to protect all the people. It’s all about comprehening the intentions the founders had when writing the Bill of Rights that in today society are invading and failing to respect people's rights.

Recently your officers and agent have come to the city of  Lauderdale Lakes and forced people out of their homes against their will, Stating it was for their own safety. I’m sure you are recognized with the 4th amendment and you would notice this is a immense violation of the people’s rights. Yes, there might have been a handful of houses that was deluge but that doesn’t justify them for telling people that it’s mandatory for them to leave their homes. Even if there was peril near you can’t force anyone to leave their homes, you can notify them and recommend for them to leave their homes but you can’t compel them to leave their houses

Firearms serve an important part in American society. Another problem the people of Lauderdale Lakes are dealing with is the agents won’t authorize legally owned firearms inside of the storm shelters. If a person own a firearms legally this is a violation of their constitutional right. The 2th amendment explains that people have the right to be arm and protect yourself. Florida law required for a background check to purchase a firearm. They keep governments under control and they ward off some other citizens with hostile intentions. Majority of people are good, some are bad. A person who legally holds a firearm should be allowed, by all means, to protect him or herself at any time in any place.

 I would have gratitude if you took time to correct the mistake that are taking place here. I admire and appreciate you for reading my letter to read about the government forcing people to evacuate from their homes and citizens were denied the right to bring legally owned firearms to storm shelters that having been happening in Lauderdale Lakes. Thank you so much!

Sincerely,

Charmaine Rose

02.03 The Anti-Federalists

     I would be an Anti-Federalist, because they didn't deplore federalism, they just wanted to make improvements. Anti-Federalism worked to put more power into the states hands, giving state governments more authority. Just as Anti-Federalist believe, I concur with the constitution but the bill of rights that was later added on was important and necessary. The Bill of Rights is a huge essence in our personal rights that we have everyday. 

     People who supported the constitution as it was and argued for immediate ratification became known as "federal men" or Federalists. They also pushed to get it ratified immediately. Federalists were also in favor of a strong centralized government . Their leaders were usually influential men such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. They were proponents of an organized, efficient government that could secure their economic status. The Federalists were orderly and in many states they often controlled the elections of ratifying conferences with their power and influence. "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." In the course of this conflict, two plans were brought into the picture to find a solution to the issue. The Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. Federalists from large states were in approval of the Virginia Plan, because it would contribute power to the larger states. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.”

    Just because they were known as the "Anti-Federalists" did not mean they were against federalism, they just desire the states to own more power. The Anti-Federalists were loyal to their state governments. Anti-Federalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, usually enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led. They also dread the powers would be designate to a large central government, especially powers of taxation. Some Anti-Federalists focused on the adding on the Bill of Rights and others just despised the Constitution completely. “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". Anti-Federalists were supporting the New Jersey Plan as opposed to the Federalists most likely supporting the Virginia Plan. The outcome of the New Jersey Plan was giving more power to the states just as Anti-Federalists favored. "The objects of jurisdiction… are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail."

     The Federalists had a mind set on one idea: Federalists wanted the constitution ratified instantly and that is all. Federalists supported removing some powers from the states and giving more power to the national government. "If we are to be one Nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other Nations". They wanted limited government powers use. If the government was a limited then there wouldn't be no Bills of Rights. The Federalists was closed-minded to the fact that there could very well have been improvements made to the constitution. Federalism did not give citizens an opening to their own voices. "To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone."


     Side with Anti-Federalism because they want to have strong, separate state governments, rather than a strong centralized government. They feared that a strong executive wold be ruled by a king or tyrant so the Anti-Federalist believed a bill of rights needed to be added to the Constitution to protect people's right thus giving more citizens more opportunities to be heard and to protect citizens against government. At the same time, they felt that a government that takes away individual freedoms is not worth having.