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 they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
Constitution outlines the steps how an amendment can be proposed. Amendments can be proposed either through Congress or through a Constitutional Convention. Regardless of how an amendment is proposed, the final and most important step is ratification. The two methods of ratification are the three-fourths of the state legislatures and three-fourths of the states in convention (Mount, 2006). The most common method of ratification is the three-fourths vote of the state legislatures.
It all began with James Madison who was, “considered the “Father of the Constitution,” and believed that strict limits on federal power were best for liberty. Powers of the federal government which were not enumerated in the Constitution were forbidden” (“Constitutional” 1). This is how society should be today, where the federal government is restricted to enacting on the laws solely stated in the constitution. Now many presidents and high authority leaders began to follow this idea. With all other powers off limits to the federal government, they didn’t get too powerful.
It held that civilians might be tried by a military tribunal only where civil courts could not function because of invasion or disorder. It decided that even though the United States was at war, the federal courts of Indiana were operating, and they alone might try the case. The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating. In essence, the Court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even when the
Police and firefighters may be exempt from Michigan’s right to work law. The new legislation presented an issue because Michigan is the state known for being home of today’s modern labor movement. Today’s modern labor movement, Public act 312 is a law that was passed in 1969. The public act 312 prevents any police officers and or firefighters from organizing and or partaking in a strike of any form. Public act 312 also exempts other state service workers from Michigan’s right to work law.
Socrates constantly reiterated that divine law must supersede the laws created by state in the Apology, an argument he completely contradicted in Crito, where he emphasized on the importance of respect of institution and one’s civic obligation. A functioning government and society would not be feasible if there is an absence of clearly defined laws. Legitimate nation-states have constitutions, sets of rules that their constituency must respect and obey to establish a social order. It also serves as a binding social contract or an agreement between the government and its subordinate
The President is only restricted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution so the decision is made solely by the President. The only way to change this power is to add an amendment to the Constitution and this is not a task that is easily accomplished. This power that is granted to the President has created a lot of controversy. However, the pardoning of a turkey is one pardon that has become an annual tradition and is done every Thanksgiving. While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the disgrace arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of a conviction.
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.