The Judicial Branch of government along with the Supreme Court was created in 1787, because of the constitution. The Supreme court was suppose to act as the most powerful court, and check the powers of the Federal and State governments. Before John Adams left his office as president in 1801, he appointed John Marshall as the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Soon john Marshall used his power as the Chief Justice in order to instill his own opinions as a federalists, making the federal government stronger than the states. Thus stating that Supreme Court did act a partisan political body rather than being a neutral arbiter of the constitution.
Brutus says in his essay that this power given to the federal government will take away all of the state government’s power to collect taxes and that the constitutions and treaties of the states will become null. Hamilton denies this by explaining that the structure of the proposed federal government will preserve the state constitutions. What Hamilton says about this seems to go against Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that the law of the Constitution will be supreme over the states. Brutus’ Essay V seems to say the same thing over and over again. Many of the things that he lists as problems to the nation are things that we love about our government today.
Those that authored our Second Amendment could not have foreseen the production of Rocket Launchers and Atomic Bombs. One can only argue the true meaning of our constitutional rights by understanding what was implemented during the Constitutions
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
History 310 F Final Essay After ratification of the United States Constitution in the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton began unveiling his economic plans for the government. Hamilton proposed the government should assume all states’ wartime debt and future federal debt should be funded through the sale of bonds (Roark, 212). Hamilton planned for a strong centralized government and for the creation of a national banking system. These economic policies certainly would not take place if a democratic leader like Andrew Jackson was around. As these policies give too much power to the government; possibly leading to corruption or aristocratic leaders.
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).
Presidential Pardon The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the many articles and sections of the Constitution, Article II Section 2 says the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” I will discuss the many general powers to pardon that are given to the president and the controversies that have come up with the power over the country’s history. The whole subject of presidential pardons stirred little debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. No less admirable Founding Father than Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 74, suggests that, "...
It proposed a bicameral legislature * BUS- made to handle the financial needs and requirements of the new central government of the newly formed United States. * Marbury vs Madison- the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution gave the Court the authority of judicial review * McCulloch vs Maryland- the federal government has "implied powers" to carry out, without state interference, any and all rights given by the Constitution, the Court ruled that the federal government could charter a bank and a state could not tax it.
Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included
The state of Maryland[->17] had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States[->18] by imposing a tax[->19] on all notes[->20] of banks not chartered in Maryland. What's the Bill of Rights? A collective name for the first ten amendments[->21] to the United States Constitution[->22], which limit the power of the U.S. federal government. What does the 1st Amendment say about religion? respecting an establishment of religion[->23], impeding the free exercise of religion[->24], What does the 1st Amendment say about porn?