How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out? What went on with the Articles of Confederation? Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments.
The Articles of Confederation were created as a new central government form after the American Revolution. The Articles still consisted of problems, specifically financial ones. Hamilton proposed a plan that would put U.S. finances on a stable foundation. He planned to lower national debt and strengthen the national credit because he believed that "a national debt was a national blessing". However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties.
As of June 28 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that basically if a person doesn’t buy health insurance then the fee is counted as a tax. The Obama administration tried to argue against the ruling stating that the fee should just count as a penalty instead of a tax. The Supreme Court didn’t agree with the Obama Administration so they turned the decision down. Chief Justice John Roberts believes that the payment of health insurance is not that high so it should be no choice but to get it. Also the payments are collected by the IRS through taxation.
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.
However, Hamilton’s plan showed that there were differences on how to interpret the Constitution. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued that the Constitution did not give the government the power to set up a bank. Madison and Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the Constitution and said that the government only had the powers that are written within the four corners of the Constitution. Because the Constitution made no mention of a national bank, then the government did not have the authority to create one. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that a loose construction of the
One is the state federal relation--should states continue to charter and supervise banks or would an all-inclusive national banking system be preferable? While monetary economists and central-banking experts are virtually unanimous in their support of a unified national banking system, the political issue is a bitter one of long standing and there is probably no chance of abolition of the existing dual state-federal system short of another major crisis. Under the circumstances, action to abolish the dual state-federal system is not considered here, though this may be a practical requisite of the other changes considered. There would, however, be obvious, important monetary policy advantages in compulsory Federal Reserve membership for all banks, or at least in application of standard Federal Reserve requirements against deposits at all banks. Actually, Federal Reserve membership would be of secondary importance if common reserve requirements were made applicable, and this step could be accomplished for practical purposes within the limits of existing federal powers and without infringing on other aspects of state supervisory jurisdiction.
In Alexander Hamilton’s written opinion for president George Washington, he said “it is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones”. The Federalist wanted stronger federal power and therefore believed in the loose interpretation of the United States constitution, and the Democratic-Republicans wanted less federal power and therefore believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a federalist, and his economic plan involved the creation of the National Bank, however the Democratic-Republicans believed that the constitution did not give the government the right to do such a thing. This was a difference in views of the two parties, in the matters of how the constitution should be interpreted. Moreover, the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans differed in their views on foreign affairs.
This made it difficult to conduct business from state to state. When people purchased goods from other states, they had to pay a tax. In these respects, under the Articles of Confederation, the United States were not treated as united states, but as many different countries. The new Constitution corrected this by stating that only the Federal Government has the right to coin money. Therefore, people no longer had to worry about changing the currency when crossing into other states.
This makes his argument that the EU will be disconcerting for the US. Basically, as the GE- Honeywell merger story illustrates, the EU’s power comes from its ability to meticulously regulate all business intending to benefit from the huge regional market. Basically, if any company wants to profit, it has no choice but to comply. It seems that Reid avoids this whole issue because there is little evidence in support of a Europe that has sound economic ideals upon which to build
To try and prove these assumptions, the ad shows inserts of highly credible sources such as The Wall Street Journal, and Tax Policy Center to say that he will not give detail on what he will do to the middle class taxes, they say his plans will be forced to raise them. Although this is based on some truth, the ad is not completely based on all truth. I do not think that the ad is completely effective after the facts that have been found. It is because the main dispute on the raising of the middle class families is not completely true; it is what the Democrats think Romney will choose to do. But because Mitt Romney has not told exactly what he plans on doing, the main point of the ad is a