USA is powerful because of our isolationism from other foreign countries and if we joined the League, it would mean that we would be under control of Britain and France and we would be like dummies; doing whatever the puppet master told us to do. That would be like signing a blank cheque to Britain and France and that would mean we would have to do anything they told us to do. Many of the Americans are recent immigrants and are opposed to the Treaty of Versailles. The Legislative doesn’t want to do anything that the US population is against. Also, the Congress believes that the Treaty is unfair and
These ideas were rejected as the framers of the constitution thought this would cause corruption and disrupt the balance of power between the branches of the federal government (Webster, 2016). Later in the convention the Committee of Eleven proposed the idea of electing the President through a College of Electors. The founders thought the selected group of electors was a better process to select the President than going with a direct voting system. The purpose of the Electoral College is to create a safeguard between the population and selection of the President, and to provide power to the smaller states. This system was then written into the Constitution and can only be altered by an
America does not have this type of law that makes it compulsory for every adult to vote in national elections. What if a country could adopt another country’s laws? What would happen if America adopted Australian voting laws? By using a law that works for another country, there is a possibility that the law could help the new country who is now using it. By adopting Australian voting laws, and laws similar to Australia, America would benefit from having fair elections, having the right candidate being chosen for office and creating a better overall nation.
Articles of Confederation: Did the Articles of Confederation deserve to be replaced as the basis for the U.S. government, because they promoted states' rights or was the system of government more truly democratic and worthwhile that could benefit the Americans and society? Major issue: Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not control trade between the states or with foreign nations. The thirteen colonies were given too much leniency and it seemed that each state acted like a small nation. Many Americans viewed the Articles as something that only weakened the government and society as a whole. It made America seem more vulnerable to European influence and internal conflict between states.
If America were to remain under British rule it would only cause more conflict between the countries in Europe because other countries were trying to get a piece of America for themselves. Paine is saying that if America gains independence the fighting will stop among Europe, and America can benefit all countries with trade. 3.) Why does Chalmers equate independence with slavery? I think Chalmers equates independence with slavery because he already believed he was free under British rule.
In Document A, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms, it is written that the American people feel they have been wronged by England because their rights are restricted and wish for these basic rights to happiness and such. With Document B, Thomas Paine writes in Common Sense that to obtain these rights the Americans so desire they must go to war with Britain first to drive Britain out of America so they can have the capacity to make their laws and rights just how they would like. In the words of Thomas Paine, “tis time to part.” In Document E, a letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, Abigail asked that when making decisions that the political representatives took women into account. She also warned against letting males’ natural tyrannical nature get the best of them in their decision making. Once the Americans got rid of the British, they could move forward and give people their rights.
It is understandable that the founding fathers did want neither the Congress nor the people to have the power in electing the president. They were afraid that the people were too emotionally driven and susceptible to mob mentality and if Congress chose, then the president would commit their job to Congress; and this would corrupt separation of power. Electoral College ensures that the most qualified person, not necessarily the most popular, would be selected by groups of electors, representing their states but also expressing their personal convictions. If we were to abolish the Electoral College, it would mean Amend the Constitution. With two-thirds of both houses are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, and in the states, also three-fourth of which are needed to ratify an amendment.
In the UK we do not currently have a codified constitution nor have we ever had one however recently there have been cases put forward arguing for one suggesting it would be better for the nation. A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules according to which a state is governed, a codified constitution then takes this a step further by entrenching these rules making it harder and generally impossible for them to be changed. I feel that the UK does not actually need a codified constitution. One argument for the introduction of a codified constitution is that liberals argue that it would have a better safeguarding of human rights. With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed.
Although I am not yet able to vote I have already asked myself this while coming up with only two answers which are: I’ve decided who I want to lead us and that I’ve gained independence. First being that I’ve decided I want to lead us. If the person we vote for wins then they could possibly affect our future, such as if the president we voted for gets elected then he could do things such as sending our country to war. The president could also do many other things that could either positively or negatively affect our future if they have help from someone such as the congress like signing bills into laws which could range from drugs being illegal to killing people being legal. Second being I’ve gained independence.
'[2] Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, heavily effected by the teachings of JR Seely, feared Britain would be eclipsed as a great power by the USA and Russia 'unless the resources of the British Isles could be buttressed by those of the British Empire. '[3] Doubts were raised about the continuation of this now precariously placed empire and 'no event was more responsible for raising doubts about the nation's future than the South African War. '[4] The longevity and events of the war signified a crisis of British imperialism and in this essay I will attempt to detail why this was the case. Internationally, in the lead up to the war, there was an 'intensified struggle for markets and spheres of influence...this signalled a significant resructuring in the global economy that carried troubling implications for Britain. '[5] Other countries had undergone rapid development and were now forcing there way onto the world stage.