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
“The judge determines the law when, while the jury is responsible for finding facts of the case in most common law jurisdiction”. Is the American jury system still a good idea? Is a good question to ask and in my personal opinion I do not believe it is. The reason why is based on documents B, C, D provides why I feel strong about my opinion. To begin with, the word “sacred crow” is something that is well respected and people do not want criticized.
If the Governor can’t hire or fire his subordinates, then he has less or no control over them. Power is highly decentralized and spread out to several different officials, which prevents the governor from having too much power, but it also prevents the governor from effectively doing his job. Those that wrote the 1876 Constitution saw this and decided that it’s better to have a weak and ineffective governor than a powerful and effective governor. The lieutenant governor, who heads the Senate and appoints its committees, has more power than the governor. The Texas governor serves as the commander in chief of the state's military, the Texas National Guard, and enforces all the state's laws with his limited police powers.
Federalists, on the other hand, believed in broadly adhering to constitution, characterizing them as broad constructionists. This allowed the Federalists to make decisions that were not clearly supported by the constitution, ultimately giving the government more power than the constitution. While the Federalists and Republicans were thought as very diverse parties, their beliefs ended up crossing during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. Therefore, from 1801 to 1817 while the Federalists were considered to be broad constructionists and Republicans strict constructionists, they both went astray from their beliefs so each party could do what was best for themselves and, most importantly, the country. From 1801 to 1809, during the presidency of Jefferson, it was the first time that the Republicans and Federalists didn't abide by the ordinary ideals each group previously followed.
On the other side, I agree with the argument that concentration of power can often lead to abuse of power. What I support is the Presidential form of governance even at state level, where the chief executive controls the executive branch and guides the agenda towards a strategic vision. At the same time, you have the chief executive being responsible to the Congress and the Senate. In my opinion, governance is about a system of checks and balances, neither extreme of either a very weak or a very strong autocratic chief executive is a correct way. In my opinion, Texas would benefit from a
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.
AP Global Summer Assignment “That government is best which governs not at all”. This statement was made by Henry David Thoreau in his book Civil Disobedience expressing his argument not for a removal of the government, but for an improved one. What Thoreau believed was that people should not be governed by a government that serves in their own interest, but instead by a government that works for the people. Thoreau demonstrates his want for a better government by demonstrating the faults of the current government and expresses his opinions as a citizen. Civil Disobedience was written in 1849, during the Mexican American War.
He is often thought of as one of the most popular presidents. Andrew Jackson was democratic in many ways; he was a supporter of the common people, he helped the “transfer of national power from the country house to the farmhouse” (Document B), and be believed in the power of the people and “that all offices – whether appointed or elected – must ultimately fall under the absolute control of the people” (Document D). By believing and supporting in the people, Jackson won the favor over many americans. During his presidency, Jackson made many statements about offices and how long their terms should be and how they should be elected by the people, rather than by other offices (Document D). This won the favor of the public in many ways, mainly due to the fact that they saw a president who was representing them, rather than only wanting to put themselves into a higher position.
With the foundation of a federal government, that government can regulate and maintain both domestic and international trade without individual state interference, therefore making the United States one of the most important trading countries in the western world. This is only one possible explanation, another might be that they honestly did purely want to build a government for the people of the United States and by the people, which is supported by Paul Johnson’s writings. Other debates between intentions lie behind the injection of United States into the Vietnam conflict. Some historians say that the reason for our entrance into the conflict was to protect democracy and stop the spread of communism. Others say that the U.S. involvement wasn’t to protect democracy but to protect our economic interests in the nearby South Pacific and Middle East.
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. Hamilton stated as opposed to the Executive and Legislative branches of government, “...[The Judicial Branch] has no influence over the sword or the purse;” (Federalist #78) Because the Executive branch has the power to enforce law and the Legislative branch has the power to declare war and make laws, Hamilton argues that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous. Although I believe the Judicial branch has many positive aspects, I agree with Hamilton’s argument