How do you think our rights were protected against tyranny by the Constitution? Tyranny is when one person is given all the power to control a country of a government in a dictator like manner. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways, which were federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was Federalism, a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government. The guard of federalism is shown one way in the Constitution when they set up the compound government to make sure that the federal government doesn’t get too much power.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
The constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways such as federalism, separation of powers, check and balances, and the big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was federalism, which meant a system of government in which power is divided between a federal government and state government. The guard of federalism is shown two ways, one of them is the government will each control each other and at the same time each would be controlled. The second way is when some responsibilities are given to the state government so that they can share the power equally. Federalism protects against tyranny because powers that are given to central and state are shared, it also ensures that the federal government doesn’t have much to say in what happens in the country so they wont become powerful and create tyranny.
* Federalists- People who supported the Constitution during its adoption. They believed in large national government, weaker state government, and government by the elites. * Anti-Federalists- People who opposed the Constitution during its adoption. They wanted a small national government, strong state government, rule of the common man, and protections of individual liberties. * Define and give an example of separation of powers and checks and balances * Separation of powers- An aspect of the Madisonian Model of government that requires each of the three branched of government to be independent of and to share power with each other so that one cannot control the others.
Locke and Montesquieu believed that limited government (government has limits and every person has rights) was best. Montesquieu thought that governments such as monarchies and despots caused conflict between the people and the government. Limiting the government’s power over the people would take away the chances of a monarchy or despotism forming, and the best way to do that would be to divide the government into three different branches. Dividing the government into three branches will make sure one branch is not becoming more powerful than another, eliminating the chances of it becoming ruled by a monarch or despot. Locke believed that the government should never even be given such a great amount of power.
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. The Constitution, under article III section I, allowed for a central court system, including one Supreme Court and a system of lower courts. This would alleviate the dissention in the AoC court system and allow for cases to be heard and decided based on a central system of
The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states. The first guard against tyranny was federalism which means a compound government made up of a central or state government. Powers given to the central government were to regulate trade, conduct foreign relations, provide an army and navy, declare war, print and coin money, set up post offices, and to make
I personally say that strength is not given but earned by what you do to get others to approve your intensions. In other words, strengths and weakness depends on a personal capacity to influence the conduct of those in government. Power seems to be based on how influential or persuasive one can be. However, I also think that no matter how much the President tries to get what he wants during his term, the President will never be the most powerful man in the country. He is always sharing his power due to the checks and balances system.
Democracy respects the human rights of the individuals, better than any other form of government. Without going into confusing arguments, let's stop and think for a moment. If you are a leader of a democratic nation and you are abusing your power or using your power in the wrong way to restrict or violate somebody else's rights, what will happen? There are two possible outcomes. You can be blamed or voted out of your position, both of which ensure the removal of the leader from abusing society.