President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. 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.
Federalist #78 Analysis The Federalist #78 was written by Alexander Hamilton on May 28, 1788. In the essay, Hamilton expresses his views on the structure of the Judiciary as written in The Constitution. Although Hamilton listed many positive aspects of the Judicial Branch, he also wrote about negative features the Judicial Branch has neglected to offer as stated in The Constitution. In The Constitution, there are three branches to help balance the government, to make sure there is no way to overpower any other branches within the system. The Executive Branch, which includes the president, is in charge of enforcing laws, the Legislative Branch controls making laws, and the Judicial Branch is a system of courts that interpret the laws created and enforced by the other branches.
When looked at in comparison to an entrenched constitution it seems better as in an entrenched system, parliament would be unable to pass such reforms so easily as entrenching something makes it incredibly hard to change. On the other side of the argument, many would say that due to the UK having a constitution whereby the head of Parliament is also the Head of the executive and also with the government mostly having a majority in the House of Commons, it means that the Prime Minister can pass through any legislation that they really want to pass. This could be seen undemocratic of the UK. Moreover, due to the Parliamentary Act of 1949, the House of Lords are only able to delay legislation for one year before it becomes automatically passed. This means that the House of Lords are unable to act as the judiciary in rejecting and checking unwanted bills.
CONTRASTS BETWEEN THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEMS | | Contents INTRODUCTION The US constitution is codified. This document, including the amendments and Supreme Court rulings that clarify its meaning, is the basis US constitutional law. US statute can also define power relationships within the USA but it remains subject to the Constitution and can be declared void through judicial review. The UK constitution is uncodified and based in statute, common law, conventions, works of authority, and EU treaties and law. The UK parliament is sovereign and parliamentary statures are the supreme source of constitutional law and cannot be declared unconstitutional.
Although both of them did not lack in information, they misinterpret and misused some of the information they stated in their speeches. For instance Kennedy misinterprets when he argues “I believe in an American where the separation of church and state is absolute…” (1). The separation of church and state is not absolute as Thomas Jefferson stated in 1768 in The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Jefferson states “…for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order…”. Jefferson explains that the government should only interfere with religious freedom when it inferences with someone else’s natural right; thusly making the separation of church and state not absolute.
The power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional leads some people to assume that the judicial branch will be superior to the legislative branch. Hamilton examines this argument, starting with the fact that only the constitution is fundamental law. To argue that the constitution is not superior to the laws suggest that the representative of the people are superior to the people and that the constitution is inferior to the government it gave birth to. The courts are the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from exceeding the powers granted to it. The courts must not only place the constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives.
Britain, at best can be described as quasi-federal as opposed to unitary state or a federal state. The new legislation has created new assemblies, but retains parliamentary sovereignty and limits the powered and authority of these devolved governments. Such powers however such as foreign
If not why not? The incorporation of the Bill of rights is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the United States Bill of rights to the States ( American goverment and politics today page 114) The second amendment is not incorporated because of precedent; also commented upon the use of selective incorporation doctrine. The seventh circuit wrote how the incorporation is hard to predict (fast.org). The seventh circuit stated that another theme stressed in the debate over incorporation is that the constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as element of liberty rather than destroyed in order to produce a single nationally applicable rule. 434 words count
‘Our Constitution works’ Gerald Ford Post – Watergate president. To what extent and why can a constitution written and devised in the 18th century still work in the 21st century? The constitution of the United States is a codified, single document which was written and completed in the 18th century, unlike the UK constitution which stands as un-codified as it is not written and bound into one single document. Unlike the UK constitution where the power is centralised, the US constitution contains the nation’s constitutional arrangement. It based on the principle of the federal division of powers, with some powers being vested in the federal government and other powers vested in state governments.
The content of the constitution (doesn’t show a controlling influence) x. Facts - that there are no wealth/property qualifications to hold office in the federal government IV. Logic and overall strength of argument g. Beard xi. Powers given to the government by the founding fathers such as control in foreign and interstate commerce allowed them to make laws that help themselves. Also,