The Constitution is an adequate democratic document, when the Constitution we have in place today is the subject of that sentence. By being adequate it is meant to serve its purpose, nothing more or less, in establishing a democratic form of government that is satisfactory to the people. The Constitution proves that statement true in the fact that we do not have citizens openly revolting in the street, calling out against it. However, in some streets there are voices starting to be heard, calling into question the democracy of the document. Some cause for concerns can be found in the first writing of the Constitution (the one that will soon be thoroughly discussed) and some lay in more recent Amendments.
Declaration of Independence vs. U.S. Constitution The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were created to work together; therefore they share many similar tones but the U.S. Constitution has a much stronger tone overall. A charter is a document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, defining its privileges, and purposes. In this case, the Declaration of Independence would be a charter and the US Constitution would be bylaws which the rules adopted by and organization chiefly for the government of its members and the regulations of its affairs. For example, we would see this in business today and that these two sets of documents work together: a charter would show why a company goes into business, and the bylaws is how a company will organize and govern itself. Similarly, when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, the Declaration of Independence served as the charter or the purpose document, and the U.S. Constitution served as the bylaw, or the organizational document.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This may sound like the political ramblings of long dead patriots, yet the core message at the heart of the preamble still holds true. The U.S. constitution still holds true to its word to this day. "Under the Authority of the United States, the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land." More than two hundred years after its ratification, the Constitution is still the functioning body of the United States. Many such documents throughout history have either failed or have outgrown its developing society.
It can be as small as just exercising our birth rights as U.S. citizens. It can be as big as running for office! By occasionally writing letters to the president about how I feel about certain issues, like the world’s current energy crisis, I preserve American culture. By simply respecting authority and obeying the law, I preserve American culture. The Constitution has established and maintained a culture of liberty in the United States.
Constitution Paper By: April 13, 2015 HIS/110 Instructor: Constitution of the United States In the 1700’s men came up with a set of laws that they felt could aid the people of the US. There were some objections with the Decoration of Independence that the Constitution was capable to address. The Constitution was capable to detect and address weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. There are some explanations why the Constitution changed and it aided for the US. The Great Compromise was an official contract for the big and small states that have two representatives in the upper house for each state.
In the article “The Framers and the People” by Alfred F. Young, he investigates and explains the appropriate assists that emerged from the writing of the Constitution. Young examines the logic behind the Constitution and attempted to discover why it was not extensively biased towards the authors that created it; white, investing men. He also takes an insight towards the assertion that the Constitution would be in honor to those who wrote it, and attempts to understand an alternative statement for why the pre-writers said that the Constitution did not indeed, favor themselves. Some may believe that the logic had for writing this article was to understand and offer different perspectives to the audience One of the main conflicts throughout the article which the author makes clear is that the Constitution was not only reported to appease the call of the time, but to benefit society for many years to come. Alexander Hamilton was an early proposal maker who created and followed a plan of action, in which the bulk of the satisfactory needs of the people would therefor be
In this paper I will critically evaluate the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and attempt to explain why we will always obey the social contract and why it is important that we continue to do so. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY Social contract theory is a branch of political philosophy which examines the foundations on which the legitimacy of political authority is built (Lessnoff 1990). The fundamental premise of social contract relied upon by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is that political authority, political legitimacy and political obligations are derived from the consent of those who create a government (the people), and those who operate it through some form of quasi-consent (majoritarianism) (Riley 1982). It requires a mutual transferring of right in which people relinquish their freedom by allowing others to make choices that will benefit society in general. This notion can be found in the literature of the theorists.
This decision has become a part of the history of the state, and has determined its policy ever since on the question of internal improvements. It is referred to here because the construction there given to an important constitutional provision is based solely upon the public history of the state and the well known feeling of the people at the time of its adoption. Here, then, we find one of America's foremost constitutional lawyers recognizing and adopting the public history of a state as the best guide in the interpretation of its fllndamentallaw. 'When we reach the broader domain of international law, we must rely wholly upon history for our precedents. Here there is no supreme power to prescribe rules of action; no court with jurisdiction to decide or power to enforce its decrees.
Daniele Posch Voice of Democracy Speech November 4, 2012 APUSH The Relevance of the Constitution in Modern Society It was once stated by Henry Clay that, “The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.” The Constitution was created to govern America for eternity. People in America value the Constitution and believe in its legitimacy. Also, the Constitution frames our country until this day. No one would be able to create a better document for America. Our Constitution is still very relevant; considering, since the year of 1781, all still abide by this ratified document.
The major power that the judicial branch has is the power of judicial review. This was something that was undefined in the constitution, but ever since the first court gave itself that power it has been unchallenged. They decide though interpretation of our constitution what they believed our founding fathers intended in our Constitution. Judges get to sit on the bench for life, and that is in my opinion one power that is to great for one person. They are able to serve under the condition of “Good Behavior” .