• The executive branch held too much power. All these are valid points and I would say that they were right in resisting to sign the Constitution, specially with no limits on the rights the government would have over states. They wanted to make sure where the states would still have power over some of their issues. They had just faced having to take care of soldiers, being prosecuted without trials, not being able to talk
Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all. Unlike the Anti-Federalists, most Federalists were wealthy, well-educated, and unified by the desire for a powerful, centralized government.
Democratic Republicans all in all wanted things to remain the same in the U.S government because they felt that giving more power to the national government by way of national bank or tax would slowly get rid of the people’s voice in politics creating a rerun of the previous outcome with Great Britain. Both party’s with opposite beliefs going back and forth has followed the U.S since this time in history it is safe to say that the First Party System left behind a legacy of feuding in government politics. When it comes to decision
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
It is the means public opinion is reached and public policy is made. The exceptional opinion, no matter how distasteful or controversial to the majority, must be protected. Now Mr. Kaufman what I have stated has been between the lines of my perception of such a rule that is stated in almost every college I know of. All colleges have rules and all colleges share their own Freedom of Expression policy because those colleges make up their own “government” if you want to think of it that way. They conduct the roles and actions that will be played out and since the students are like the people voting for a president we don’t get a voice that says, “Hey change that rule because I said so!” No, instead we act in an elderly fashion and vote as whole for a fair share in an individual right.
Although the people had a right to be involved in the government, the author of Caesar No. 2 thought that it should be left up to people of greater intelligence to choose the government and its actions. The argument against this was that the people had the ability to choose the people that would have authority in the government. This idea helped place a foothold in the government for the people to always play a role. The last concern was that of the
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
The separation of powers is quite pivotal for the US government otherwise there tends to be some corruption relevant to the extreme utilization of powers. Those two points of view are states by James Madison while planning to set up the Constitution of the national government, and those opinions are all crucial to the development of
Many American today don’t realize the importance of such a document, and how it extremely relates to way our society is organized. It’s meaning is a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority, and proper ends of the government. It proclaimed that political rule would reside in the sovereignty of the people. If we didn’t have the declaration of independence today, our society would be much different. We shaped our life as they are today according to the principles of freedom, equality and liberty, and if we did not follow them many of us today wouldn’t have the freedom to exercise whatever religion we want, have free access to the media or even have the job the want to have.
Most people really do not know the whole Constitution and it’s entirely but if they did there would be many things they would think is constitional and do not need to be changed. Madison believed to cure the problem remove the cause or control it. We have been using this all this time so obviously it is under control. Now if we decide to make a new one it is not going to make many people happy. It’s possible it will cause many problems and possibly another recession.