The Articles of Confederation wasn’t working for the fifty-five individuals at the Constitutional Convention on May of 1787 in Philadelphia. Under the articles, there was no chief executive, court system, or a way to force the states to pay taxes. For Madison and his delegates, they were challenged by having to write a Constitution that was strong enough to hold the people and states together without letting one person or group, branch, or level of government gain to much control. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states.
Martin Luther argued that the charter was not “a republican form of government” and all acts thus far are not binding. The question was whether or not the Court had the authority to declare which policy could be called the government of Rhode Island. The Court held that the federal courts did not have the authority nor is it the courts function to decide “political” matters; it is the responsibility of the President and Congress. Another example is how Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. He contended that the health insurance mandate was lawful under Congress’ power to “lay and collect taxes.” Roberts said that “the text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning” and the “the government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax.” In contrast to Judicial restraint, Judicial activism is the idea that judges should actively interpret the Constitution and make policy decisions in new ways.
Madison which was in 1803. Secretary of state, James Madison held up one of John Adam’s “Midnight Judges” appointments; he was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. Marbury sued and never received his job. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.
He believes the founding fathers never envisioned to grant exclusive war powers to the president. If a president wants to go to war, he must get the approval of Congress as stated in the Constitution. He says the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally grant a military attack in a situation that does not
The year was 1798 when the Federalists Congress passed the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts. It was signed into law by President Adams. According to "U.S. History Pre-Columbian to the New Millennium" (2008-2012), “The Sedition Act was a violation of individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution.” This did not matter because “Judicial Review” had yet to be developed. Because justices were powerful federalists, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson collaborated in private and authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. These resolutions declared that federal laws are invalid in their states and provided a classic statement in support of states’ rights (Kelly, 2012).
Has no immunity for acts that occurred prior to becoming president and can be sued while in office. PART IV. FEDERALISM I. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article IV Valid federal law overrides inconsistent state law. o Includes constitution, statutes, treaties, admin rules etc.
All pending habeas corpus cases at the federal district court were stayed. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.’’ Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated. The application of the rule of law has not been used in this aspect and justice has not been
The Electoral College system used for picking the President was not chosen as a primary topic in the constitution, as for instance the right to freedom of speech was, instead it was used for lack of a better solution. “ We need a National Popular Vote to determine the President of the United States, just like a district-wide popular vote determines the winner of a Congressional seat, just like a state wide popular vote determines the winner of the race for Senate or Governor. No country in the world uses a system as byzantine as the Electoral College , and indeed no constituency inside the United States uses something so daft” (Dayen n.p.) The Presidential Election is the only election that uses this system. I feel that there is no reason for using the Electoral College to be used.
Church and State By David Gerrish In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. One example being the nation’s early attachment to the Church of England. Three years after this amendment was written, it was ratified by the states of the union. James Madison, also referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”, was greatly worried about the church’s influence on the Federal Government. He once voiced his concern in 1785 when Patrick Henry proposed a bill requiring all citizens in the state of Virginia to pay a tax that would support religion with each taxpayer being able to choose which church they would like to support.
By the spring of 1776 reconciliation with Britain appeared to be impossible, and on May 10 the Continental Congress called on each colony to assume sovereignty. By May 15, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution to sever all ties with the mother country and called on the Continental Congress to declare complete independence. In 1787, delegates meeting in Philadelphia drafted a Constitution after bitter debate on a variety of issues. The discussion of a bill of rights was addressed on several occasions, but it failed to carry a single state. Federalists justified the absence of a declaration of rights by arguing that the Constitution established a federal system with specific powers delegated to the national government and other powers reserved to the states.