The doctrine of parliament sovereignty has been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British constitution. It can be summarised in three points: that parliament has the power to make any law they wish; that no parliament can create a law that a future parliament cannot change; that only parliament can change or reverse a law passed by parliament. Parliamentary Sovereignty thus gives unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament. A.V. Dicey describes it as ‘the dominant characteristic of our political institutions',and ‘the very keystone of the law of constitution'.
They were influenced by the writings of the french political philosopher Montesquieu. In his book ‘The Spirit Of The Laws’ Montesquieu argued for a separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in order to avoid tyranny. ‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person…there can be no liberty’ wrote Montesquieu. The Founding Fathers implemented this, through the president, Congress and the US Court System with a Supreme Court which holds ultimate judicial power. The separation of powers was designed to limit government, as each branch would carry out different functions of government this meant no single branch has total control in order to form a dictatorship.
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. 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.
Federalist #78 Analysis The Federalist #78 was written by Alexander Hamilton on May 28, 1788. In the essay, Hamilton expresses his views on the structure of the Judiciary as written in The Constitution. Although Hamilton listed many positive aspects of the Judicial Branch, he also wrote about negative features the Judicial Branch has neglected to offer as stated in The Constitution. In The Constitution, there are three branches to help balance the government, to make sure there is no way to overpower any other branches within the system. The Executive Branch, which includes the president, is in charge of enforcing laws, the Legislative Branch controls making laws, and the Judicial Branch is a system of courts that interpret the laws created and enforced by the other branches.
Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the authority of the federal government was based on a strict constitution. The Federalists believed in the opposite. Federalists believed that the constitution should be interpreted in a loose and broader way. The Federalists were able to make decisions that were not written word for word in the constitution. Jefferson states his disagreements with James Madison when he says, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.” (Document A).
When written, the United States Constitution did not provide for the development of a two-party system. Yet we, as the rebellious Americans that we are, managed to find a way around the Constitution. The two parties that emerged during the 1790s were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, so aptly named, favored a strong centralized government as outlined in the Constitution. The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force.
It is their job to declare void acts by other branches violating the Constitution. Second, as Alexander Hamilton has said in the Federalist Paper, the judiciary review should act as barrier between the people and the Congress. The main goal of the government is to protect the people. The Declaration of Independence also states the government is for the people. The general liberty of the people must not be in danger especially of the government power.
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
John Adams also believed that the federal government should have more power than the state government. He also believed in following the rules of the British. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson believed in the rules of the French. He also believed in laissez-faire, which meant that the Government should stay limited and not have much power. Although i believe many things from both people, I would have to say my philosophy would be Jefferson’s philosophy because he believed every word of the Constitution.
The Federal Constitution allowed for a national government, congress’ ability to declare war, and the ⅗ Compromise. Interpretation of the Constitution concerned the political freedom of the country. Hamilton favored a loose interpretation while Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation in which anything that is not permitted is forbidden. The political impact of foreign policy was also up to question. Washington did not want any political ties with other