My plantation house

"2d. We will next enquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution. 

It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able to reckon them up." 

 -Brutus #5

Federalist #10 vs. Brutus #5

The only papers with an accurate point of view of the new union are, in my opinion, the Anti-Federalist Papers, especially Brutus #5. These papers emphasize that the United States needs to be governed by a confederation to be it's best. Through the Constitution, the legislature will not be limited enough and allowing the legislature to make laws at their own discretion could have disastrous consequences and make it almost impossible to define their power. The Constitution considers the different states to be one body corporate, and that is not the case. The states should be in control of their own internal affairs and the United States should be seen as a mass of different powers, not one power.
In the Federalist papers it is stated that the nation needs more unity for the common well-being, but I think a little competition is good within a nation if it leads to greater successes, for example, in the economy. They also state that a republic is best for everyone but I disagree. A confederation is the only logical way to balance power amoung the states and not have too much power given to a single source. I also don't understand how giving the legislature more power will create greater unity; how can one body be trusted with so much responsibility?  How do we know the legislature will not abuse it's military authority and the right to tax, just as the British did? The state government should be the ones trusted with these responsibilities even if some think otherwise; it's okay not to have perfect unity if the states are functioning.
www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus05.htm 

Tobacco is important to Virginia AND the union's economy

"Compromise" of Executive Elections

I believe that the Compromise of Executive Elections doesn't give power to the individual in elections because representatives will be chosen by more representatives. Where's the liberty in that? People should be given the right to chose their leaders directly. It's ridiculous to me that the federal government would call themselves a democracy and not even shown the respect to citizens by letting them vote for their leaders. Despicable...

Should Virginia join?

I have doubts that Virginia would be better off as a part of the new union. The question in my opinion isn't whether or not we need the union, but does the union need us? Let's be honest, the new nation's economy would most likely cripple without Virginia's economic contribution. Slave trade is very important to Virginia's economy, and though at the Constitutional Convention leaders have tried to make compromises such as The Three-Fifths Compromise and The Slave Trade Compromise, these conclusions may have hurt us more than help us. Even though the Slave Trade Compromise gives us more time to accommodate to the end of slave trade, it's still ending, and slavery is very important in maintaining our major staple crops. And including slaves as only 3/5s of a person in the population count is only 3/5s of what we wanted. The state's future may be better off as a sovereign state.

The Constitution of Virginia

The Virginia state Constitution states the exact rights of individuals, while the new Constitution of the United States just states more rights for the government and does not boldly outline citizen's rights and liberties.

 http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm

The new branches of government

With this Constitution, they are planning to establish 3 different branches. The legislative branch would include a House of Representatives, which favors representation for the "large state plan", and a Senate which favors the New Jersey "small state plan;" this plan for the legislature was reached through the Great Compromise (people included in the creating of the compromises were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, William Paterson and Edmund Randolph). This part of the government concerns me because I do not believe the House would truly represent the nation, and the Senate would be too powerful. I am concerned with the establishment of an executive branch. I don't want any one leader to have too much power in the government overall; I believe the states should have more power in the government that the national government and this executive branch would just be a diaster in the making and show resemblence to the British thrown. The executive branch would take away the state's power, would it not? The power of the new federal judiciary would take away power from the state judiciary, making justice unattainable and therefore be another way for the rich to oppress the poor. This means that with this new government we will either once again become a monarchy or fall into the hands of a corrupt aristocracy.

Pffft... federalism.

Federalism means that the state government must defer its' powers to the national government. I don't agree with that because I believe that the states should have more power, and too strong of a central government is not what this country needs. Do we really want a repeat of what happened with Britain? Too strong of a central government with out a clear declaration of rights will just lead to more chaos. Individual rights need to be protected, as they are in the Virginia Constitution. Every right for our state is outlined, and we don't need a strong power looming over the country with it's power being controlled in some way. The Constitution is valid in general, but we need something to outline the rights of individuals and protect the liberties of all citizens.