NM+Constitutional+Debate

The Constitution is a very influential document but because of this it is also a very controversial document as well. This allows for enduring debate because of the different ways that the Constitution could have been written and for the different ways that Constitution can be interpreted. When the Constitution was written there two different groups who wanted the Constitution wrote a certain way or not at all. These two groups were the Federalists who supported the Constitution and the Antifederalists who did not want a federal constitution written. These two groups were exact opposites and eventually to ratify the constitution, many compromises had to be reached. This is how it allows for enduring debate because when a person puts themselves in the shoes of one of these groups, it allows for people to understand the emotion and passion people had in their beliefs and the pros and cons of each side of the argument. In our own class debate we could have spent hours debating each topic because of the advantages and disadvantages of each side. With choosing sides, it demonstrate to the participants of the debate the passion each side held for their ideals and why this allows for enduring debate. Each side was convinced they had the best idea that the only way that a Constitution was going to ever be ratified was reaching compromise on each topic up for debate. These compromises included moving the capital to Virginia and adding a Bill of Rights, both of which were demanded for by the Antifederalists who were proponents of individual rights. As a result of the passion of each side, the Constitution allows for enduring debate because each side wanted opposite things in a federal government which made it impossible to choose only one side or the other for the Constitution. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached in order to ratify a federal Constitution. The Constitution also allows for enduring debate because of the different ways the Constitution itself can be interpreted. This was demonstrated in our classroom debate because we used Alexander Hamilton’s and Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation to argue for each side. Each side has an opposite interpretation and they are both quality arguments so that is why it allows for enduring debate. These different interpretations are different but valid at the same time making it nearly impossible to convince anyone to completely choose one side or the other which is why it is a very long process to debate it. In our classroom, using these two interpretations, it only extended the debate because these backed up our arguments for our ideas since they are valid interpretations of the same document making it impossible for there to be a clear cut right or wrong argument. This was the only solution for this debate was to make a compromise and find a middle ground.