The final draft of the United States constitution was approved by the twelve state delegations on September 17, 1787. The document provided the laws of the land as well as the rights of its people. The document tries to cover all the many problems of the country, but seems it came on as a great challenge due to the fact that we all have different views and interpretations. The laws were made pretty clearly as they were extremely elaborated, but when it came down to slavery, it wasn’t clear whether any laws were made because the word black or slaves was not mentioned at all. The United States constitution was neither pro-slavery nor anti-slavery.
Unlike codified constitutions, the constitution is not authoritative. Constitutional laws enjoy the same status as ordinary laws. Uncodified constitutions are also not entrenched. The constitution can be changed through the normal processes for enacting statute law. On the one hand there are many arguments
The Incans were not able to because they had no written language which led to the lack of knowledge about this civilization. The Mayans and the Incans, both, grew technologically and culturally but in their own ways. They were contrasting technologically but had similar cultural beliefs. At the end they were both very successful civilizations in the Middle
Wordplay is the reason why most politicians seem to be lawyers not politicians. The questions brought up have been and always been either avoided or rather ingeniously walked around since the establishment of our constitution. Was it because our forefathers didn’t have an exact answer, did they foresee possible problems and left it open to time. Either way the lack of exact translation has shaped America and allowed alternate ideals to flourish. The author brings a question that although it almost has an obvious answer has been and still is a strong problem in the establishment of a fair and equal nation, and that question is “Who Is A Person”.
The main reason for the failure of the Frankfurt parliament was indefinitely its lack of military power, which could have been used to combat any opposing forces that didn’t follow with their decisions. However Prussia and King Friedrich Wilhelm IV (King Frederick William or KFWIV) must also be counted into the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, as must the factors of Austrian presence and Internal Problems within the Frankfurt Parliament. Primarily, military power was non-existent in the Frankfurt Parliament and in its endeavours, as there was simply no money to pay for an army. Many states in Germany had armies, but none were as powerful as that of Prussia or Austria. The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes.
Also the league wasn’t responsible enough to take care of all the problems in Europe as its powers were not so strong. Also the interests of the leading powers were normally fulfilled so the League in reality didn’t have any power to execute its rules they made up, thus being the weakest point of the league. The League of Nations was set up by the twenty six clauses in chorological order from 1~26 in the Treaty of Versailles, it is called the Covenant of the League
However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it
He then spent another two paragraphs to give the setting of the Zenger case of 1735. Both of these cases eventually brought about justice in the eyes of the people. With regard to the Bushell case, William Penn was saved from unjust punishment; with Zenger’s, freedom of press was upheld. Katz goes on to quote the Declaration of Independence as a support for the importance of the jury system. One of the reasons given against King George of England for the American Revolution was that he refused to allow the American Colonies the benefits of jury trial.
Anti-Federalist felt that the Constitution gave more power to central government and less to the states. They also argued that the constitution would become too weak because the central government wouldn’t be able to run all states as a result of being too distant and removed from interest of common citizens and farmers. They feared that the Federalists' new government would be too similar to the harsh regimes of Europe which held great power and thus repressed the people. Anti-Feds were extremely scared of a strong central government and the fact that under the new Constitution, the federal government was more powerful than individual states. Another argument was that the states could not print money
In the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay. In Thoreau's time he was arrested for choosing to not pay his general taxes. He paid school and medical taxes, but refused to pay general taxes because he did not support slavery and the Mexican war, which was undoubtedly where the general taxes was going. The problem that Thoreau is addressing is the ability of the government to do such things. In his eyes the people should support only what they want to support, nothing more or less.