why Georgia didn't joined the First Continental Constitution?
603291
http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/search?id=1330
695539
The entire point of the Constitution was to separate us from a European point- of -view! Our founders were so disgusted by the imperial British, French, Spanish, Prussian, Hungarian monarchical incest and interbreeding, as well as the constant state of war on the Continent, that they created an entire system from scratch that was NOT European. Soooo, who gives a rat's patootie WHAT the Euros think? No one is fighting to emigrate to Poland, are they?
487823
At the Constitutional Convention 1789 each State considered itself a separate soverign country and the Constitution was essentially, the States giving up some of their inherent rights to a central government.  Think of the formation of the European Union. \nTransportation was by horse and wagon.  People did not know of anyone not within their local area.  Most delegates were afraid that voters just would not know enough about the canidates to make an educated choice.  Delegates did think that voters would know their local personages and could make a choice among those persons.\nDelegates from small states were afraid that their interests would be ignored if a candidate could be elected just with the votes from Virginia and Massacusuts (the two most populated states).\nFrom all of this, and a few other more minor factors, a compromise was reached:\n    So that voters would be able to intelligently exercise their choice, they would vote for state delegates (electors) who would then use their better knowlege of the candidates to vote for the person the delegates thought the persons who voted for them would choose if they knew the candidates.  For example, I'm in Goose Fork and I've never been outside of Goose Fork.  I know Dr. Smith and Rev. White.  I vote for Dr. Smith as a elector.  Dr. Smith goes to the state capital talks with the other electors and decides that the people who voted for him would prefer John Adams to Aaron Burr.\nTo minimize the advantage candidates from larger states might have, the Convention gave each state electors equal to the number of Senators and Representitives the state had.  Each state gets two Senators and Representatives are allocated by population, thereby giving votes in smaller states greater weight.\n\nExcuse the spelling but the spell check is on the fritz.
616222
Under the current system, the US Constitution, the first president was George Washington. There was a government in place before that known as the Articles of Confederation. Under that system, the president was not the chief executive that he is today. Under the Articles of Confederation the president's full title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled." The first person to hold that title was Samuel Huntington. Before that, we had the First Continental Congress, which did have a president as well. The first president of the First Contention Congress was Peyton Randolph. He was also the first president of the Second Contention Congress. The Continental Congress(es) were not intended to be permanent, they were a sort of revolutionary government. There is some confusion about all of this and some people argue that John Hanson was the first President of The United States. But I do not have the time to go into why that is so; He was the 3rd president under the Articles of Confederation.
940801
Masachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersy, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia\n\nsome interesting trivia:\nDelware was the first state to adopt the Constitution.\nthe land that is present day Maine used to be a part of Massachussets, and did not become a separate state until 1820.\nthe land of present day West Virginia used to be included in Virginia. during the Civil War in the 1860's West Virginia broke away because they disagreed with the rest of Virginia.\nVermont used to be a part of New Hampshire.
125225
The constitution was ratified in 1787.
906727
here's what I just found as part of my history notes.  it's why the Anti-Federalists didn't want the constitution.  to answer the second part of your question though, I know that the Federalists appeased the anti-federalists with a bill of rights to make them support the constitution.  so here's, from my US history notes, why the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the constitution in the first place, sorry for the shorthand:\n\n"-said that the Constitution should have been made in public meetings instead of private things between a few elite ppl: therefore it wouldn’t reflect the wants of the people\n-said the new const gave too much power to national gov; took away powers of state govs\n-congress itself, according to const, would be given too much power to make laws\n-separation of powers between executive and legislative wasn’t very good\n-const allowed a standing army, which scared the antifeds\n-no bill of rights; const did not give any rights to the ppl, so gov could take them away whenever they wanted; antifeds wanted a const to specifically give unabridgeable rights\n-anti-feds wanted it to be more democratic and direct to the ppl"
167434
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
379266
The Constitution was “penned” by Jacob Shallus, a Pennsylvania General Assembly clerk, for a fee of $30 \n\nJames Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” was the first to arrive in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. He arrived in February, three months before the convention began, bearing the blueprint for the new Constitution.\n\nGouverneur Morris was largely responsible for the “wording” of the Constitution, although there was a Committee of Style formed in September 1787.\n\nBenjamin Franklin needed help to sign the Constitution. As he did so, tears streamed down his face.\n\nJohn Adams was serving as the U.S. minister to Great Britain during the Constitutional Convention and did not attend. \n\nFrom 1785–1789, Jefferson served as minister to France. He did not attend the Constitutional Convention.
861183
C\nA\nC\n\nDiscussion on number 2:\nA. There was no president as we view the office today, in fact, the original founders did not want a central government led by one person. They were afraid of tyranny so they deliberately stayed away from that system.\n\nB. The articles did not discuss a central court, but did establish full faith and credit between the states of the the judicial and court proceedings of the states.  However, Congress was the "court" to determine disputes between the states.  A Central court, or judicial branch came later with the US Constitution. \n\nC.  The regulation of interstate commerce by the Federal Government was a sticking point.  At this time, the 13 states were 13 separate republics.  There was an attempt to amend to amend the Articles to allow Congress power over interstate commerce, but the conception of the new Constitution coincided so the "former" articles never really addressed interstate commerce.\n\nD.  Again, no president as we view it today, but there was a president of the Congress.  That position did not make decisions, because most decisions needed the votes of 9 states and major decisions needed all 13.  Vetoing power and the executive branch came later, with the new US Constitution. \n\nBEST ANSWER for #2 is A.
970860
As written in Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:\n\n"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
669010
The Articles of Confederation made it so the states were sovereign over the federal government. This made the continental congress useless, and things didn't work well, at all. For example, if congress decided they needed money for the Indian problem, then they would have to ask the states, and the states could deny it. It was basically just an agreement between the states to be friends. You can also look at what happened to the south in the civil war, because their government under Jefferson Davis made the states sovereign just like the articles of confederation, which led to the losing of the south. (States would chose not to send money for food and arms up to the southern army)
813615
The constitution had to be ratified by 9 states to go into effect.  DEL, NJ, PA(1787), CT, GA, MA, NH, MD, and SC(1788) were the nine that put it into effect. VA and  NY(both in 1788) quickly ratified thereafter, but NC(1789), RI(1790) and VT(1791) didn't ratify until later.  Hope that answers your question.
839073
Federalism goes back to the beginning of our country and the writing of the constitution.  From 1783 to 1789 the USA was a weak confederacy of 13 states with no real binding rules, law or govt to work for the country as  a whole.  If you go to Philly,in constitution hall, right next to the declaration and the constitution are the articles of confederation.  It was the argument of a Strong central federal Govt as opposed to Each state having autonomy.  Its actually what the civil war was all about the south claiming that each state had rights above what the federal govt in Washington could tell them.  The North claiming that without strong central govt there could be an anarchy of each state doing as it pleased and laws with no power as soon as you crossed a state line.  That's why Lincolns Gettysburg address is so famous it outlines the good of Govt,  of, for and by the people, and how the common good must sometimes super cede the wants of some of the people.  Recently tho federalism has come to mean opposition to strong central govt.  One of the most recent examples was Oregons passing a right to die law, struck down by the congress most of whom were GOP and pro-states rights.  Also gay marriage has become a states rights issue, but those on the side of states rights are opposed to gay marriage.  Its a complicated matter that has been dissected but not solved by the greats from Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Hamilton
500685
First president of the USA was John Hanson.\n\nThe Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.\n\nSix other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office. Why don't we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States? It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution. \n\nGeorge Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.
924073
Hello,\n\nHere are the senators from Georgia:\n\nHope this helps you....................................................  :-)
14728
The authority of the Constitution was established after it was ratified by the (I believe it had to be 7 of the 13)Thirteen States. What isn't expressly given to the Federal Government is implied to go to the states.  The 3 branches had their own powers that check and balance each other out