how did americans react to the constitution when it was first established?
826035
I believe the Anti-Federalist had the Bill of Rights puts in and then it was pretty much supported with some opposition.
79226
In order by date they ratified the Constitution:\n\n1. Delaware Dec. 7, 1787\n2. Pennsylvania Dec. 12, 1787\n3. New Jersey Dec. 18, 1787\n4. Georgia Jan. 2, 1788\n5. ConnecticutJan. 9, 1788\n6. Massachusetts Feb. 6, 1788\n7. Maryland Apr. 28, 1788\n8. South Carolina May 23, 1788\n9. New Hampshire June 21, 1788\n10. Virginia June 25, 1788\n11. New York July 26, 1788\n12. North Carolina Nov. 21, 1789\n13. Rhode Island May 29, 1790
694815
The first President of the United States of America was George Washington, President from 1789 to 1797
400702
constitution and Bill of rights
932857
Kind of a trick question.  What would come to be the United States was governed first by the Continental Congress from 5 September to 26 October 1774.  The Second Continental Congress oversaw the conduct of the War for Independence.\n\nThe "United States" was declared in the Declaration of Independence , July 4, 1776.  However, the very first actual government, The Articles of Confederation, did not take effect until March 2, 1781 when the first Congress of the United States Assembled convened for the first time.  The War for Independece was not concluded until September 3, 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.
202691
It doesn't. The Federalist Papers, published in 1788 arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. \n\nThe articles were written by James Madison (4th President), Alexander Hamilton (the first Secretary of the Treasury), and John Jay (the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
760799
Are you talking about the English Magna Carta or the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA.???\nIt is confusing.
802888
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
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.
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.
224627
The founding fathers feared that interest groups would form  when they were making the constitution.
811735
Because at the time, it seemed to make the most sense to everyone.  Some people agreed and others disagreed on some aspects of it but it appeased the majority of people in each state.  Off the top of my head that is what I can come up with at the time.    Dude I answered like two of your history questions.    Do you need things for a history class by the way??  Go to constituioncenter.org if you need more info on the constitution.  Hope that helps!!
258295
I assume you are refering to the United States government? Keep in mind that not everyone on Answers is American.\n\nAt any rate, function is a bit too strong a word. However, the current federal system came into being with the radification of the constitution, which began in 1787 and was completed in 1790. The Constitution took effect in 1988 when it had been ratified by 9 of the 13 states. The new federal government began opperations in 1789.\n\nFrom 1777 to 1788, the federal government was defined by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation remained in effect until the 13th state ratified the constitution in 1790. The government defined by the Articles was strickly speaking a federal system, but the federal government couldn't really do anything, so the systme didn't last very long.
10183
When the US first separated from England after the Revolution, the people were wary of strong, centralized government (because of their experiences under the English king).\n\nThey first formed a loose fedaration of separately-governed states.  It proved too 'loose' to be effective, so the states re-organized under the current US constitution - which gave more power to the Federal government, but still left some control with states.\n\nSince then, balancing state & federal powers has been a near-constant issue.
70396
As soon as it was enacted.  The First Amendment is a part of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.  Any legislation or law can only be a law if it complies with the constitution.\n\nSo I guess the answer to your question would be December 15, 1791 when it was passed or ratified by the states and added to the constitution.