The United States Constitution has been a product of numerous counts of conflict and compromise since its very creation. With the crucial need to revise the Articles of Confederation because of their intrinsic weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was the first event which spurred such examples of argument and negotiation into running. A multitude of plans were suggested at the convention, in the endeavor to procure adequate means of instituting fair ruling in the new constitution. These plans possessed both supporters and dissenters which unfurled the extended clash of rivalry and concession. This provides the very concrete infrastructure for which the Constitution was founded upon.

            The Great Compromise was an arrant instance of this subject. Although it won with the five states Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina in favor, the states Georgia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia stood opposed. With Massachusetts remaining split down the middle, New York’s departure and New Hampshire and Rhode Island’s absence, it was a very narrow victory for the foundations of the constitution our government practices and utilizes today. The compromise ultimately rested on the decisions of forming a house of representatives consisting initially of 65 members apportioned among the states roughly on the basis of population and elected by the people, and also settled the decision of forming a senate consisting of two senators from each state to be chosen by legislatures. The matters of this compromise were called into deliberation because of the lack of equal representation of the states on a federal level.

            The subject of equal representation was further argued within the Constitution with the 3/5ths Compromise. Some states, especially southern states, were preponderant with slave populations and these certain states desired the highest amount of representation on their total population in congress. Black-Americans were heeded as inferior beings at the time of this compromise, so it was decided that instead of amounting to one whole count for each person, the bulk of African-Americans would count as 3/5ths of a man, thereby allowing the southern states with better representation. With the support of the inhabitants of the southern states for a better-than-nothing amount, abolitionists and humanitarians opposed the 3/5ths Compromise because of its dehumanizing and debasing effect, manifesting the government’s notion of blacks being inferior to white-Caucasian Americans.

            Another example of a conflict and compromise focal point is Unites States voting requirements. In the genesis of this country’s independence, white men who owned property were only permitted to vote with the exception of having freed slaves able to legally vote in four select states. Nowhere in the Constitution did it mention the right to vote, so each state developed its own idea of limitations and standards of the franchise. Four years After the civil war and the abolition of slavery, the 15 amendment of the Unites States Constitution allowed black men to vote which had its share of dissidents especially among the cohorts of old-school confederates and pro-slavery advocators. It wasn’t until 51 years later in 1920 that the 19 amendment was passed by congress to allow women to vote with some numbers of men viewing women as too lax, indifferent or ignorant to know how to vote. The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 ultimately allowed all nationalities of U.S. citizens to vote without literacy tests or other statewide limits. The requirements of voting within the Unites States have drastically changed over time through the propulsion of the development of the Unites States as a nation. It is astounding that only forty-one years ago a major amendment was drafted to ensure the equal opportunity to vote, taking hold of the Democracy which is supposed to be a main basis of freedom within our nation.

            In conclusion, through our nation’s history, the Constitution has been involved an egregious amount in dealing with conflict and compromise. The different stages of the Unites States throughout its development have all had their share of circumstances and impending matters of consideration. From the implantation of sufficient modes of conducting government, to the value of a citizen, and to the ability to take part in the system of Democracy which the Unites States was founded upon, the Constitution has whirled itself into an excessive bout of controversy, confrontation and steadfast mandates in the attempt to attain the most fair and quintessential guarantee of freedom and liberty to the common American citizen.

Many Americans find it a bemusing issue to contemplate an impediment in the flow of illegal aliens entering our country. This being said, it is equally bemusing to witness the modes of installment our politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) have formulated. How could an 8-foot wall possibly keep out the influx of thousands of immigrants per day infiltrating our country? Does one really think that a wall is going to halt illegal immigrants’ determination to achieve the superlative living conditions America offers? Conservatives everywhere are in dire need to come up with more practical, cost-efficient methods to maintain safety, law and order on the 2000 mile stretch of border, because, depending upon the decisions of Congress will be a long-awaiting matter.

It is then that one questions the attempt to attain safety and all other qualities which need be purveyed in the border debate that one starts to go off on a tangent. How could the legislature possibly enact reform on the border for the better of the immigrant’s wellfare and for ensuring legitimacy in entering our nation in legal process? It appears quite patent that the only way to achieve these means is internal discouragment.

A tight statute must be implemented to ensure that all buisnesses in the free-enterprise system, monitor the legal status of all employees. Such statewide propositions have been voted for numerously in local elections, but perhaps, because of the circumstantial, pressing importance of this quandary, stronger, more emboldening propositions should be slated for votes. With each passing day, American citizens are witnessing the denial of financial aid on both state and federal levels while illegal aliens are granted their benefits. The unwillingness to defray taxes by many illegal aliens is making our economic status more and more sluggish, especially while we are currently passing through a recession.

Reform has to take place where, strict levels of screening and approval are issued to illegal aliens in order to nip both the nominal aspect and economic drags which illegal aliens are causing our nation. Until such reforms can be instated, a stalemate will remain on our border line, still deliquescing the finances of our country and corrupting the legal standpoint of fairness in our nation.

As our greatest forefather Benjamin Franklin’s veritable quote dictates: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Unfortunately, in recent times, American citizens have totally overlooked the significance of this proverb and have eschewed in many ways, this general revelation of constitutional conviction. (more…)