Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
The constitution contains our unalienable rights that protects us from government. The bill of rights spell out for every american what they can do within the realm of their freedom. Our constitution is our structure. The three branches of government and the checks and balances are all still fundamental in the running of america.But there are outdated sections of it that need to be reguvinated, that need to be discussed for the betterment of our government.It need to declare issues like heathcare and an economic plan so that the country can have a clear path to walk through. It seems like america is too proud to let go of its constitution, it has become a historical trophy for our government that sits and collects dust.We must re-draft the constitution,keeping some fundamental sections but reforming parts that no longer are important, and to add sections that have become a part of america.The action of even questioning the relevance of the constitution, shows the old and non functional nature of the constitution.
Many people believe that the Electoral College is outdated and we should not use it anymore. One will argument that the Electoral College can make sure people are making the right choice in choosing our president. Another reason why we are still using this voting system is because in order to get rid of it, it would require a constitutional amendment, which is extremely hard to pass. In order to pass/ratify an amendment, three fourths of the states have to agree upon changing the Constitution. This is very unlikely to happen because the Electoral College benefits the smaller states.
“From 1781 to 1789 the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an effective government” Using the documents and your knowledge of the period, evaluate this statement. From 1781 to 1789 the Articles of Confederation failed to provide the United States with an effective government. Proper governments should have the ability to have a certain amount of power over its people, under the Articles; the government could not regulate trade, tax or enforce most laws on its people. The states were given the task that the national government should have been given. Among its many weaknesses were the single branch of government, unicameral, and the inability of congress to tax or declare war.
Both federalists believed the new Constitution would help with providing protection, the general welfare of the people and enforcing the laws. (Doc 1 & 3) Two men, Patrick Henry and Amos Singletree, were both antifederalist and opposed the Constitution. Patrick opposed the Constitution because he believed the states would lose power. He thought it was too late to try to fix something that separated America from Great Britain. Amos Singletree believed the men who drafted the constitution are using it as an excuse to gain more power and money for themselves.
They did this to “modify and address the failures of the Articles of Confederation” (Callahan 34). Although there were many weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation and they might not have provided the most effective form of government, the articles helped lay the foundation for the new government of America that we have today. The central government was too weak to govern, with no chief executive, no national court system, no power to regulate interstate commerce, no military, no national currency, and it was difficult to pass laws. According to Callahan, the Founding Fathers believed the Articles needed to be replaced by the U.S. Constitution because they needed the nation to function as one united country and not as thirteen small and unorganized nations. The Articles of Confederation was just a start to what made our nation how it is
Even inside the borders of our great nation, the Constitution shows that it’s still relevant to the American society. For example, the 27th amendment says that Congressmen and women can’t raise their salary while in office. If this amendment weren’t in place, then our debt wouldn’t be to China; instead it would be to the Congressional Officers of the United State government. Now to reference into foreign countries again; in some countries like South Africa, the right of women’s and colored person’s suffrage isn’t allowed. In other countries like Libya the right to vote is granted to no one because they are either under a dictatorship or the entire country is in mass chaos.
The long standing debate on whether amending the constitution to allow Naturalized citizens to run for presidency has formed arguments for and against the issue; all arguments stand with valid points. But as a democracy as the United States is, the government must consider the equal treatment of all its citizens including those naturalized. Loyalty to this country does not fall in place according to the country a person was born but by the values they were raised in. Not everyone has a realistic prospective of running for president whatever their background may be; but excluding certain citizens from consideration merely based on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. Kennedy states in his article “It makes second-class citizens of naturalized
Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
And they’re right they should. But the fact that the country was attacked by people who easily incorporated themselves into the nations daily life raised a huge problem. And that’s when people started to wonder how much intrusion of citizens lives should the government be allowed in order to provide protection for the citizens of the United States. The expansion of government power is a bitter acceptance for fellow Americans. The reason I say that is because when the power of the government expands people tend to put more trust into state and local governments rather than the federal government.