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. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
With respect to the Federal Constitution, the Jeffersonian republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the federalists. To what extent was this characterization of the two parties’ accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison? The Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists were both thought to be different when abiding by the constitution. The Republicans believed that the authority of the Federal government was based on a strict constitution, characterizing them as strict constructionists (Doc A). Federalists, on the other hand, believed in broadly adhering to constitution, characterizing them as broad constructionists.
Article Review: The Framers and the People Introduction In “The Framers and the People”, the author Alfred Young examines the particular circumstances that arose from the writing of the Constitution. The author examines the reasons why the Constitution was not completely biased towards the people that wrote it; white, landowning men. The author examines the premise that the Constitution would be favorable to those who wrote it, and offers an alternate explanation for why the drafters of said Constitution did not indeed favor themselves. The reason that the author had for writing this article was to offer different perspective in observing circumstances before the signing of the Constitution. Critical Summary: One of the main contentions that the author makes is that the Constitution was not just written to
Paine’s view of the ideal form of government was premised upon “a principal in nature…that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered”(7). Simple and natural government for Paine was representative republican government, and he attacked the English Constitution and argued that balanced government was necessary for civic
The Federalists were usually characterized as loose constructionists, which meant they focused more on the intent of the constitution and its framers, and believed that changes were necessary for the development of the nation. Although Republicans and Federalists were characterized as having these particular views towards the enactment of the Constitution, when Jefferson and Madison served as Presidents during the beginning of the 19th century from 1800 to 1817, it was proven that even though they seemed to believe in their own views, in reality when time came, they started changing their beliefs and becoming both strict and loose constructionists for the good of the nation, which was strongly advocated by Henry Clay and his American System. The same would occur for the Federalists, so generally, each side did not accurately characterize itself during the early 19th century and proved each side had its similar interest when interpreting the Constitution. Before Jefferson became President in 1800, The Federalists dominated national politics for the first decade of America’s governmental history because of George Washington and John Adams favoring Federalist views. It was not until the
Whereas, for Republicans this is federal government spending which should be reduced and that people should be self-sufficient and shouldn’t rely on the government. Some senators have taken this to the extent there considering holding a repeal vote. This is clearly a difference in opinion that is deeply rooted in their respective ideologies. Another issue is gun control and again this has deep roots in the parties’ ideologies. Republicans have a firm belief in the written constitution and believe that its contents should be taken literally.
Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law. Marshall stated that Marbury is correct in the fact that he is deserving of an appointment, yet the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional so the court can't give him an appointment. In this case Marshall stated the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. By using the Marbury v. Madison case, Marhsall was able to create the Judicial Review which gave more power to Federal government, and thus helping his ideas as a federalists. John Marshall also used the powers of Congress and the relationship between federal and state authorities to end a dispute between national and state law regarding banks—McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.This time was during the Era of Good Feelings as James Monroe was president.
He believed that the Constitution gave the federal government opportunities to do whatever was “necessary and proper” as in a national bank. Jefferson on the other hand was an anti-federalist. He believed in a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution. If the Constitution didn’t give abstract power on something, it was up
Federalist vs. anti- federalist Federalists liked having a strong central government--the kind with the president and congress and the Supreme Court. Anti-Federalists, however, wanted strong state governments--they wanted more laws to be made by state governors and state senators. 8. A federal system of government Federalists favored a strong central government as opposed to the anti federalists who favored a weaker central government. Federalists wished the US constitution to pass as it was before the amendments and the bill of rights.