American History




Oneof the notable arguments against the bill of rights was that it wasagainst Australian tradition. Firstly, it would imply that theprinciple of parliamentary sovereignty would no longer be applicableand yet it acted as the main principle of polity in Australia. It wasalso argued that, the enactment of the bill of rights would implythat there would be no vote of confidence in people and legislatures.It would also put emphasis on putting restrictions on implementinglaw even though they were willed by all people (,2014).The original constitution did not need the bill of rights because itwould not protect individuals who may be harmed by derogation fromimportant rights. Australian citizens had much trust in legislatorsbecause they believed that they believed that their parliamentarydemocracy did wonderfully well.

Secondly,a bill of rights would limit rights.Initially, this bill was centeredon rights in criminal processes and rights of property, yet there aresome laws that cannot be easily enforced and expressed by the courtand the responsibilities of individuals would just be as significantas their rights.Furthermore, it is argued that Australian humanrights were doing very well under the common law. Introducing thebill of rights would imply that it is replacing the commonlaw(,2014).

Thebill of rights would overlook new problems. Any bill of right thatwould be drawn presently would be out dated. There is a variation inthe problems of human rights at varied ages. Therefore, futureproblems would entail those presented by human genome project,biotechnology, and computers. There was a likelihood that Australianbill of rights would entail all the issues of basic rights that aresupposed to be addressed within a proper charter of individual’srights. Therefore, Australians preferred the original constitutionbecause the parliament would assist in addressing any arisingissue(,2014).

Adoptionof the bill of rights would mean erosion of the originalconstitution.Proponents against bill of rights argued that they didnot want the features of Australian constitution to be eroded. Theyargued that the constitution is supposed to strictly followed becauseit serves Australians citizens very well when it comes to issues todo with rights. They also argued that their original constitution isranked among the best globally when it comes to protecting humanrights. They also argued that the elected parliamentary democracy wasvery significant in terms of protecting human rights.

Furthermore,a bill of rights would ignore variations in regions.Another challengewould be that the bill of rights may be heavy-handed. It would thesame in the entire continental country. It would endanger varioussocial regulations. Human variations for instance plants and animalsare a key characteristic of freedom and nature. Through the originalconstitution, various reforms had been achieved for instancehomosexual reforms, anti-discrimination and this tradition wasexpected to continue.


Differencesbetween Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton

Theoriginal homeland for Jefferson was aristocratic family and hisfamily was richer compared to Hamilton who was just an immigrant fromWest Indies. Jefferson received favors from farmers in the U.S whileHamilton was favored by the manufacturers and other businessindustries. This is because Jefferson opposed high tariffs whileHamilton supported hightariffs. In terms of politics, Jefferson wasthe leader of Democratic – Republican Party, and had much trust in avery weak government. On the other hand, Hamilton was the leader ofthe Federalist Party and a strong belief in the strong centralgovernment.

Jeffersonbelieved in a strong interpretation of the constitution meaning thatif the constitution did not give any specific power to the federalgovernment, he assumed that power belonged to the state (Cunningham,2000). On the other hand, Hamilton believed in the looseinterpretation of the constitution. This particular difference isshown in the conflict for a national bank whereby Jefferson did notsupport it.Based on the fact that the Constitution gave the federalgovernment the mandate to do what was correct and necessary, Hamiltonbelieved that he was in a position to do this.

Themain between the two was that Jefferson was an optimistic person whobelieved in numbers, viewing things through a rose of coloredfilter.However, Hamilton did not trust any fault and masses. Ibasically agree with Hamilton than Jefferson because he believedthat, a strong government was a necessary prerequisite to offer orderso that industries and business would grow. He contributed to Americabecoming an industrial power. He also had an idea of establishing anational bank that would fund national so that firms would have anincreased base for national credit. I also agree with him because heargued that the government should be run under the leadership ofwealthy and educated people (,2014).

Theconflict between Jefferson and Hamilton resulted to the rise ofpolitical parties by polarizing factions in different politicalparties (Read, 2000). Those who supported Jefferson’sDemocratic-Republicans advocated for state rights and it was a mustthat the constitution was to be read. Furthermore, he supported theFrench Revolution. This was contrary with Hamilton who believed in astrong government and it was to a lesser extent that he supported theFrench Revolution (Staloff, 2005).

Thereare so many things that Jefferson`s and Hamilton’s disagreed on,but the major thing that the two agree on was that they both believedthat the future of the economy of America relied on the people.


Cunningham,N. (2000). Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations That Shaped aNation. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s Press. Lawand Justice Foundation – A Bill of Rights for Australia.Retrieved 12 October 2014, from AmericanExperience | Alexander Hamilton | People &amp Events | The DinnerTable Bargain, June 1790 | PBS.Retrieved 12 October 2014, from

Read,J. (2000)Power versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, andJefferson. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Staloff,D (2005). Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of theEnlightenment and the American Founding. New York: Hill andWang.