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.
With the Chancellor’s totalitarian rule, the people had no rights and no way to vote him or any other officials out of office. Another document that protects the United State’s liberty and equality is the Bill of Rights, amendments to the Constitution. The very first amendment of the Constitution states that there will be no law restricting the freedom of speech, freedom of press,
This describes that the legislative branch does not have power over any other branch of government; there is checks and balances always occurring throughtout the government.”Within Cogress, there is a further check on legislative power: for legislation to passed, a majority in each chamber of Congress is required” (Patterson 51). Patterson exemplifies the point of how no one soley has power of another person. Our Founding Fathers wanted equality and freedom of an opinion which is what the United States of America is attempting to do everyday. “ The major function of Congress is to enact legislation”(Patterson 410). The head
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.
Yoo “argues that the language of the constitution, long-accepted precedents, and the practical need for a speedy action in emergencies all support broad executive power during war.”(Taking sides p73). Yoo describes that the constitution examines the two branches power- the president as Commander-in-chief and congress with control over funding and declaring war. The Framers made it this way to be more flexible and create a more deceive action instead of going through the legislative process. Yoo believes that the President has unilateral war powers based on what is written in the Constitution and does not need Congress approval Michael Cairo on the hand thinks different. He believes the founding fathers never envisioned to grant exclusive war powers to the president.
* The King would also not be allowed to leave his people in poverty. * The Constitutional Monarchy would also allow the lay people of the parliament have a say in the decisions made. * None of these aims were radical. * Sicily – 1821. * Freedom from Naples.
It is reasoned that the substantive contents of a constitution adopted by a country at a particular point of time reflect the will of its framers. However, it is not necessary that the intent of the framers corresponds to the will of the majority of the population at any given time. In the Indian setting, it is often argued that the members of the Constituent Assembly were overwhelmingly drawn from elite backgrounds and hence did not represent popular opinions on several vital issues. Furthermore, the adoption of a constitution entails a country’s precommitment to its contents and the same become binding on future generations. Clearly the understanding and application of constitutional principles cannot remain static and hence a constitutional text also lays down a procedure for its
Some people hold the view that The Supreme Court is not a judicial institution but instead a political institution where they think more politically instead of legally in their decision making. There are nine members of the Supreme Court today and these justices were nominated and confirmed by politicians. To become a justice you must be appointed by the president and receive a simple majority vote by the Senate to be confirmed. It is known that the president nominates a candidate with a compassionate feeling towards his agenda. For example in 2010, President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
The constitution in the United Kingdom is unwritten or ‘uncodified’. There is no strict separation of governing bodies and a monarch who is king or queen with power to open and close the parliament. In this essay it will be argued that the United Kingdom is not a dictatorship, it is a parliamentary monarchy. Simply because there is no written or codified constitution in United Kingdom, this does not mean that there is a dictatorship. Constitution is the ‘fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers ‘(Oxford dictionary).
The PM doesn’t appear to have much power but in reality has a very great deal in comparison to the monarch. e. The Monarchy: On the paper, the monarch is the head of state with an absolute command, but in reality he assumes and implement the Prime Minister’s advices. II. Pros and Cons for and against the monarchy a. Pros * Good ambassador to represent the country * Excellent tourist attraction * Keepers of the country’s history and traditions * The royal family doesn’t represent any political party b. Cons * Impinges against paragraph 1, Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.