...In what ways were the delegates representative of the American people? IN what ways were they not representative? • Should the topics being debated at the Philadelphia Convention have been reported to the public? Why or why not? • Explain the difference between equal representation and proportional representation. Which plan did the states with large populations support? Why? • What position would you take on the issue of equal and proportional representation if it were raised today? Why? • What important differences of opinion existed...
Words: 1037 - Pages: 5
...Assess the US Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the USA. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judiciary, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-seven times. In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government. The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force. The Constitution of the United States was the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations. However, it has many flaws, firstly the amendment process is too difficult, thereby making it near impossible to change it. Secondly the power of judicial review gives the unelected unaccountable Supreme Court too much power. Thirdly the constitution leads to gridlock and finally some parts make no sense in modern society and don’t work as the Framers intended. Nevertheless there are positives; primarily...
Words: 1737 - Pages: 7
...Question-01: The Constitution declares that the sovereignty lies with the people and constitution is the embodiment and solemn expression of the will of the people? 1.0 Introduction: Do we have a right to hold opinions that differ from others? Can we write and publish what we think? Can we protest to your government if we disapprove of its policies? Can the government search and seize our property? Can we be arrested and held without trial? Can the government treat us differently than it treats other people? Every country is based on some kind of law. Some of those are arbitrary powers, however over the years the only rule that seems to dictate the terms is the rule of law. As a citizen, we must know our constitutional rights in order to assert them. One of the basic principles of the any constitution is the rule of law.Actually sustainable development and good governance mostly depends on the proper application of rule of law. Laws are made for the welfare of the people, to bring a balance in society, a harmony between the conflicting forces in society. One of the prime objects of making constitution is to maintain law and order in society, a peaceful environment for the progress of the people. 2.0 Sovereignty of the people: Today, most modern states have followed written and fixed constitutions. A constitution presupposes the universe of a constituent power, as distinguished from other constituted powers, created by the constitution itself. Constitution is the highest...
Words: 3408 - Pages: 14
...To Ratify or Nor? That is a question being asked over the centuries, and the answers have been the cause of serious controversies. Just like the founding fathers debated what was best for the country, by ratifying a Constutution. Today people still debate whether it was right or not to ratify the Constitution. What do you think? Today people have been able to see the benefits of having a constitution and it was proved many years ago when the Articles of Confederation did not work that a stronger central power was the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty...
Words: 639 - Pages: 3
...president have too much or too little power? In my opinion I personally believe that that in some ways the President has too much power today and the amount of power given to any one individual should carefully be monitored, some people might think that he has too much and others think not enough, I think it must be in moderation, becasue too much power could lead to corruption. I also feel that the power the president has should be limited. People says that the president has taken so much power from the other branches of government that this threatens our democratic system, the U.S. Constitution is supposed to prevent the president from using power in the wrong way. Article II states all the things that a president may do and some of the things that he or she may not do. People expect the president to deal with a huge number of problems. If there is economic trouble, they expect the president to cure it. Modern presidents don't just try to administer the laws passed by Congress. Nor do they merely recommend measures to Congress as required by the Constitution, through staff members, they often bring pressure on Congress to pass favored bills, including some actually written in the Executive Department. In Washington's day, many people thought the president's powers were only those directly mentioned in Article II of the Constitution. The first believed that the powers of the president were few and limited. Presidents of this type thought they could, or should, do no more than...
Words: 445 - Pages: 2
...important event because it is what lead us to the government we have now. The different compromises are what lead to the methods that were used and still being used nowadays The Constitutional Convention was a meeting that took place in Philadelphia in 1787. The purpose of that meeting was to rewrite the Articles of Confederation. There were fifty five men who were delegates, their purpose was to have the federal government strengthen. The delegates did not think that rewriting the Articles of Confederation would actually work out. Eventually they wrote the U.S. Constitution. George Washington was chosen to lead the convention. All of the delegates had to agree that every state would get one vote. They did not want anyone to know about what was going on during the convention meetings. The delegates made sure to keep everything a secret, anyone who was not a delegate were not allowed to attend any meetings. We have no written documents because they kept everything a secret of what had occurred during the meetings. The only details we have today is from a notebook that belonged to James Madison. However, James Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution.” He had also helped write the federalist papers. At the Constitutional Convention James Madison had done a very good job. When the delegates had to decided to write the “Bill of Rights” he was against it. James Madison was afraid that the future people would just go by those ten amendments that were listed in the...
Words: 2520 - Pages: 11
...Imperial Presidency. An Imperial Presidency is one that is developed through an over expansion of the powers of the president. An Imperial Presidency is a presidency where the balance of power is shifted towards the Executive Branch. The Presidents have used such tools as the constitution, media and pop culture, monetary freedom, and committees and executive orders to expand the presidential powers. Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama have utilized these tools to further their agendas over stepping their constitutional boundaries, congress and the people of the United States. There are many ramifications that come with the expansion of the presidential power. The Constitution, executive order, the media and pop culture, and monetary power are all tools utilized by the president to expand their powers. The Constitution is one of the main tools utilized by the presidents to expand power. Even though the presidential power is clearly outlined in Article II of The Constitution, its vagueness has provided enough wiggle room to stretch their power beyond its implementation. Therefore, one of the tools utilized by the President was actually the document created to prevent such activity from happening. In depth, Article II section I grants, “The Executive Power; followed by Article II section II witch gives the president to elect officials. This allows the President the power to choose personnel and enable them to help set sail towards a bureaucracy and their personal agendas...
Words: 1571 - Pages: 7
...1. constitutionalism, constitutional supremacy and the rule of law 1. constitutionalism a. Constitution without constitutionalism? Keith E Whittington, constitutionalism [5] * Constitutionalism = the constraining of government in order to better effectuate the fundamental principles of the political regime. i.e. A system of effective restrains on governmental action. * Constitution (often) = the written document that formalizes the framework of government * => Constitutionalism should be distinguished from the mere possession of a constitution * Written constitutions may provide few effective constraints on government or may be ignored, and governments may be effectively constrained w/o a written constitution (e.g. Britain) * Constitutionalism often (does not mean it necessarily equals to) associated specifically with liberalism, protection of individual rights against the state. * => constitutional state identified not by possession of a constitution but by its effective protection of individual rights. * (but individual rights only one set of fundamental principles that might impose meaningful limits on power of the state) * Constitutionalism also used to constrain power holders to care for the common weal or adhere to particular conceptions of national identity or religious law * 3-fold classification of province of constitutionalism * Normative Constitutionalism (most touched-on area) * Concerned with...
Words: 10446 - Pages: 42
...Constitution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Constitution (disambiguation). A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e.constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a writtenconstitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. An example is the constitution of the United States of America. George Washington at Constitutional Conventionof 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world,[2] containing 444 articles in 22 parts,[3][4] 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 117...
Words: 16003 - Pages: 65
...How the Constitution Guards against Tyranny The United States of America learned from Great Britain’s government and used what they had learned to create the government that the United States has today. After the Thirteen colonies broke away from Great Britain, they needed a plan of government so, they made a document entitled the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation worked like a constitution would and it worked very well until the framers of our now Constitution realized that The Articles of Confederation would never work to suit the needs of the new blossoming country. Upon this realization, they made a whole new plan of government called The Constitution which protected the people’s rights, set out the rules of the government, and most importantly protected all the citizens from an abusive government otherwise know as a tyrant....
Words: 972 - Pages: 4
...During in the late 1700s the Constitution has been written, and been ratified in 1788. The Framers (The Signers of the Declaration of Independence signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, and signed the Constitution) tried to make this Constitution democratic. Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies and relies in a body of the citizens. The Constitution was not that democratic when they first written and ratified it. It wasn’t democratic because first the president is elected directly by the Electoral College not the people, second the people couldn’t vote and if they voted their vote won’t count at all. The men who wrote the Constitution which are the Framers, they were not elected to create the...
Words: 424 - Pages: 2
...In the United Kingdom, we have a constitution that is uncodified and therefore not entrenched within our politics. Essentially, this makes it far easier to amend than a codified one and thus some groups have begun calling for such a constitution to be introduced. These groups cite the constitution in the USA, which forms the foundation of all political decisions; if a proposed law is found to go against the constitution, it is rejected. Supporters of a codified constitution for the UK say that this will give citizens inalienable rights which cannot easily be manipulated or even overturned by the government. A constitution is based around a general consensus of what people should be able to do or not do. Constitutional agreement forms the foundations of the concept of a rule of law. In the USA, their written constitution means that the relationship between citizens and the law is clearly defined. If a constitutional law is violated, there can be no debate over it. This means that the law has more authority in the land. However, in the UK, there is not one legal standard of our constitution and thus whether or not it was violated can be questioned. This can potentially lead to a moving of the goalposts – if the constitution is not entrenched, it is easy to change. Therefore it is impossible to hold everyone to the same standard even though the rule of law states that everyone is bound by it, because the government can essentially do what it likes in terms of manipulating or...
Words: 1775 - Pages: 8
...Discuss the view that the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been of limited impact The British constitution has been changed many times since 1997 when new labour came to power. Some of these changes have included the devolution of powers were both the Scottish and Welsh governments were given more power. Arguments have also been made for other parliamentary reforms to take place such as a reform to the human rights act and the House of Lords. Many people argue that although significant changes have taken place in regards to the UK constitution that the reforms do not go far enough. One of the reforms to the British constitution has been the devolution of powers reform. In this reform act the power to govern was decentralised from London to allow wales and Scotland to partially self-govern. This can be argued as having impact as it allows these countries to have their own limited power, for example it gave Scotland the power to vary its tax levels. Therefore it can be argued that this constitutional change had an impact that was significant; however it can be argued that the reform did not go far enough. Some people such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party believe that further reforms should take place to give the two countries more power and move it away from the UK parliament completely. These parties want a bigger impact by being given more powers to do things such as create their own laws and control their own finances. However an opinion poll into whether...
Words: 826 - Pages: 4
...Not ratifying the constitution would have been the better choice. Having a federal system where the sates are supreme makes is more beneficial to the people; having a strong central government however, leaves room for domination and control. The federalist supported the constitution and wanted a strong central government. As an anti-federalist the main focus of interest is the protecting the people's rights and limiting government control. Federalist supported the constitution, and wanted immediate ratification. They favored limiting state power, and believed that a strong central government was needed to protect the country. The Federalist's response to the anti-Federalist claim that a Bill of Rights should be introduced was that it would be dangerous. If a right was not listed, what was stopping the government from violating that law? The Federalist figured it would be best if no specific law was listed. Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution. Most Anti-Federalists believed that a somewhat stronger central government was needed, but for the most part favored a federal system where the states were supreme. Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because there was no bill of rights, they wanted the rights of the people to be documented, and limit government power to some degree. The anti-federalist also believed that congress and the executive branch held too much power, and they feared that people of wealth would have the opportunity to...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...The Biak-na-Bato Constitution General Emilio Aguinaldo Established the Biak-na-Bato Republic on July 1897 and issued a proclamation stating the following demands: * Expulsion of the friars and the return of the friar lands to the Filipinos. * Representation of the Philippines in the Spanish Cortes. * Freedom of the press and religion. * Abolition of the government’s power to banish Filipinos. * Equality for all before the law. A charter was then drafted based on the Cuban Constitution by Alex Ferrer and Isabelo Artacho. It was ratified on November 15, 1897. The Biak-na-Bato Constitution provided for the establishment of a Supreme Council that would serve as the highest governing body of the Republic. Preamble: “The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish monarchy and their formation into an independent state with its own government called the Philippine Republic has been the end sought by the Revolution in the existing war, begun on the 24th of August, 1896; and therefore, in its name and by the power delegated by the Filipino people, interpreting faithfully their desires and ambitions, we, the representatives of the Revolution, in a meeting at Biac-na-bato, Nov. 1st 1897, unanimously adopt the following articles for the Constitution of the State.” “In Biac-na-Bató...
Words: 2909 - Pages: 12
