Under what conditions can government be dissolved? Reading 2: John P. Roche, The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action 1. What does Roche mean when he describes the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a democratic reform caucus? 2. What were the major political constraints operating during the Constitutional Convention of 1787?
4 Pg. 1) It is clear the writers of the constitution used views on natural law when they put in, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The makers of the constitution wrote this because they believed the people of the colonies were not being treated fairly by British government and they were not happy. They believed this gave the citizens of the colony every right to overthrow the government based on natural law when they said, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
The Early Republic: Conflicts at Home and Abroad, 1789-1800 I. Introduction Americans assumed that the Constitution would create consensus, but the nation still faced political, economic, and diplomatic questions that led to partisan politics during the 1790s. II. Building a Workable Government A. Tasks of the First Congress The First Congress had the tasks of raising money, creating a bill of rights, setting up the executive departments, and organizing the federal judiciary.
Discussion at the Annapolis Convention of 1786 led to a convention in Philadelphia in 1787. It replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the basic of the federal government. It was written in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. The 55 men at the convention are called the “Founding Fathers” of America or “Framers of the Constitution.” Some of the famous framers are George Washington, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin.
These two founding fathers would construct one of the famous documents in the history of the world and represent a rivalry that will further enable parties to fight for what they believe is constitutional. The Constitution was a collection of compromises fused into one document to secure the liberties and freedom of the people by limiting the powers of the government. It was conducted by 55 men, most of which were moderate nationalists and became the framers of the Constitution, during the summer of 1787 in a meeting known as the Constitutional Convention. The intent of this convention was to add amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but in the end, replacing it altogether and thus the Constitution was made. This would then go to the 13 states for further approval and people would decide to make this document the new law of the land.
As a measure to defend the actions of Congress, a list of specific grievances against the king was included in the document. The closing paragraph announced that the colonies would be free and independent states, and that the United States would operate as a sovereign nation. The Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. John Adams suggested the date be commemorated every year as “the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty...” The signers of the Declaration were keenly aware that they might be signing their own death warrant. On September 17th, 1787, the final draft of the Constitution of the
Many would have to consider Thomas Jefferson as a man who was consistently inconsistent. Jefferson has a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Regardless Jefferson did abandon the principles of his party in order to do what was best for the country and it wasn’t necessarily doing what his party members agree on. Thomas Jefferson inconsistencies included international affairs, politics, and economic policies. Thomas Jefferson’s policies to for economic policies and letting the people follow their dreams to provide themselves with a steady income and provide a living.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.
However, the state or any other individual has no grounds to intervene if you’re not seen to harm others. This would unfairly deprive you of the autonomy that’s rightfully yours and you would cease to be free, in the liberal sense. It could potentially lead to others having control of aspects of your life in which they have no say, something which contravenes the idea of liberalism. This extends further, as the excerpt shows. The state and other individuals cannot intervene if you decide to do something which could potentially harm yourself but not other individuals.
I don’t think this was ethical. I don’t think information discussed in a board should be discussed or brought to the media unless they are doing something illegal. Without honesty and trust these board members will also have these issues. I think policies and consequences should handle situations like this. Someone should not be able to show dishonesty, lack of respect or unethical decisions and still be a part of that