Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights - Essay Example

 One of the major concerns of the American people before the Revolution was about the relevant representativeness of colonial interests in the British government. American opposition argued that those people who had stayed in Britain already for a long period of time had an adequate understanding of states’ needs. Thus, in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, attention is paid to defining candidates who are permitted to be elected to represent American states in Congress (“Transcript of Constitution”). Special Section 4 is devoted to local elections of state senators to be sure there are actual representatives of public will on all levels of the governmental hierarchy (“Transcript of Constitution”).

Another important concern of the pre-revolutionary time was the question of taxation. It embodied American opposition’s general worries that laws and obligations for colonial citizens are established only by up-high authority, the British monarchy, without considering the American point of view. Thus, to prevent a monarchy-like governmental system in the future, and instead, to establish a democratic federative union, Section 7 and Section 8 in Article I correspondently regulate the law-making powers of the U.S. President and determines powers which the Congress shall have (“Transcript of Constitution”). Also with a view of a recent relief from British patronage, Article IV Section 3 proclaims the Congress’ control and bans a new state formation and any other unions’ formation (“Transcript of Constitution”).

Thus, despite the social and political uncertainty, which according to J. J. Ellis, “was the dominant mood at that moment”, the Constitution's points were quite logical with a view of timely national concerns (Ellis 9). Even the most argued and critiqued nowadays law on “keeping and bearing arms” was historically reasoned (“Transcript of Bill of Rights”). The fact was that in pre-revolutionary times America experienced a military presentence of a British contingent which represented a militia, and American citizens had to take arms to raise a revolution. Speaking more generally, American people were supposed to be armed to resist the Empire’s abuse of their rights. In light of this thought, Scalia’s argument seems most fair. “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state,” could not be reconciled with the personal right to keep and bear arms unless one had the historical knowledge behind it” (“Scalia Defends Originalism”). Thus, the law on “keeping and bearing arms” reserves the right for Americans to resist a possible governmental abuse of their other rights.