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.
His death posed the question of who was to succeed him, and while Charles II ultimately returned, alternative leaders attempted to govern first. To answer the question this essay must analyse the situation under Cromwell and the events that followed to ascertain whether the Commonwealth could have survived, or whether the power vacuum could only have been filled by the monarchy. In the civil war Parliament fought to preserve the ‘ancient constitution’ of King, Lords and Commons. Parliament made generous offers to the king, such as the ‘Heads of Proposals’ drawn up by Cromwell and army officers. Charles would have kept his crown and most of his power and be assured of the retention of bishops.
Cromwell also made changes to finance. Institution of new departments of state to deal with both new and old revenues and powers of crown. Moreover, these institutions increasingly acted according to formalized rules. Cromwell reduced power of the Chamber and cut its links with the household. He set up new courts to deal with revenue: Augmentations (1536), Court of First fruits and tenths (1540), Court of Wards (1540) Court of General Surveyors (1542; this dealt with established crown lands).
However, Madison did not sign the bill into law because he believed that it wasn’t constitutional even though it would desperately help the United States. Federalists believed that the Constitution was open to interpretation and used the Elastic Clause to support their beliefs (Doc D). During one of the numerous wars between the British and the French the federal government imposed the Embargo Act (Doc E) to cease the trade between both countries to show America’s neutrality. This act harmed the United States more than helped because in New England, which contained mainly federalists, there main way of life was through trading with Europe so they had an economic down turn for as long as the war was going on. During the War of 1812, the Federalists held the Hartford Convention (Doc E) because they were against the war because they were again struggling to trade with Europe.
What you’re not allowed to do is set by law and what you can do is not set out by law. After the law has said what you can’t do you are allowed to do the leftovers (residual). An example of this is you are not allowed to do over 30mph, it doesn’t tell you what speed limit you can go under 30mph. so basically you can’t claim the right e.g to 25mph its easier to change the limit as you have no right over it. In the case Malone v Metropolitan police commissioner 1979, Malone’s telephone was tapped by the police.
An example is the Bill of Right 1689 which aimed to impose limitations on the powers of the crown and its relationship with parliament. It provided that parliament should meet regularly, elections to parliament should be free from interference by the monarchy and freedom of debate in parliament should not be impeached outside parliament. The Human Right Act 1998 is another important example, which incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights into our domestic law. It is significant as it marks a fundamental change in the protection of human rights by allowing citizens to raise breaches of their human rights in court. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 was also significant as it altered the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
The common law also includes customs and precedents that have become accepted practice. They relate to the role of the monarchy, parliament and the executive. Particularly important is the royal prerogative – the powers exercised in the name of the Crown. The Crowns prerogative powers include the right to: Declare war, dissolve parliament and appoint judges. Government ministers exercise prerogative powers in the name of the crown.
How did Cromwell help to develop a Tudor state? Thomas Cromwell, the chief minister for Henry VIII from 1533 to 1540 was a ruthless politician, who some historians believe to have caused a ‘revolution in government.’ However, other historians believe that the developments of the Tudor state were not due to Cromwell’s farsighted planning, but other factors. To answer the question, we first must identify the components of the Tudor state, and how Cromwell influenced and changed these areas. Perhaps the foremost part of the Tudor State, the Government, underwent a significant change, mostly due to the Royal Supremacy over Church carried out by Cromwell. He was familiar with Lutheran and humanist ideals, and as a lawyer he had the capabilities to carry out his ideological reforms in Parliament.
“How far do you agree that Cromwell created a ‘revolution in Tudor government’ from 1536-1553?” Cromwell’s skill and status allowed him to play a crucial role in directing the reformation and other areas of government, ultimately leading to the creation of a ‘revolution in tudor government’. Elton believes that Cromwell was the mastermind of the revolution, though others, such as J.J. Scarisbrick, believe that many overestimate Cromwell whilst underestimating Henry, believing that Henry was the initiator, even if it was Cromwell who carried out his ideas. This shows that even if Cromwell was not fully responsible for the ‘revolution’ in Tudor government, he most certainly played a large role in sculpting it. Religious reforms were key in establishing a new form of government, and therefore, to a large extent it would be suggested that Cromwell was instrumental in creating a revolution. By 1536 the Royal Supremacy in church and state was established and widely accepted, allowing Henry to exert his power more thoroughly, and ultimately creating a revolutions the king could take full control of the kingdom.
One example is Luther v. Borden (1849). In 1841, Rhode Island was still operating under a form of government established by a royal charter of 1663. A convention was held protesting the charter; a new constitution was drafted and a governor was even elected. The charter government declared martial law to shut down the rebellion. Martin Luther argued that the charter was not “a republican form of government” and all acts thus far are not binding.