To protect their new freedom from tyranny, the colonists decided to separate powers. The Declaration of Independence is timeless because it serves as a guide for new nations to form under democracy. The document describes the limitations of government and what happens when a government tries to move beyond what it can control. The Declaration of Independence e was written to rally support for the revolution from other countries and to spread the new view upon democracy. The document guides countries who are being suppressed to move towards revolution even today.
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.
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to those of the Constitution. Which document did a better job at protecting liberties? Which document did a better job at running a government? Explain your answer with specific examples The Articles of Confederation was drafted in 1777, but was not ratified by all the states until March 1st, 1781. At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible.
A good foundation must be well constructed. It must be adaptable to changes in its environment as well as sturdy enough to withstand forces that try to knock it down. It 1787, the great foundation of our country was built: the Constitution of the United States of America. However, as great as it was, a foundation cannot support itself forever, it is the job of the people using it to keep it standing. To do that, it is the duty of a US citizen to understand not only the goals of the Constitution, but the details within the document that achieve those goals.
Someone facing the crisis that this man faced should have support from the government because it’s the government’s job to protect its citizens and support them if they cannot survive on their own. “Only a strong ruling entity—the state—will end the perpetual strife and provide security” (Hobbes 25). Occupy Wall Street’s (OWS) main argument is that our government needs to
If citizens are to be entrusted with such cherished personal freedoms as guaranteed in the constitution, then they must have the responsibility to obey the law and to be productive, lest their freedoms be taken away. Conversely, if American citizens didn’t respect the law and abused their personal freedoms, then the government would be prompted to take their freedoms away. However unlikely that may be, the values that America is founded on are that men are inherently good and can be trusted to take care of themselves and respect the rights of others. One founding father who best embodies the civic value of responsibility is George Washington. As America’s hero from the Revolutionary War and first president, Washington was given many responsibilities for the new nation.
The Second Amendment Manifesto discusses not only what the “Second Amendment” literally says, but also what it implies. The “Second Amendment” outlines the rights of “a well regulated militia” and the necessity of such a militia to the security of this country’s citizens. The manifesto also explores the definition of what a Militia is and why that definition is outdated and in need of revision. The Second Amendment Manifesto brings up one more important issue about how law abiding citizens are having their constitutional rights
But for some reason criminals are always in a hurry, they won’t wait for you to use the phone to dial just those three necessary numbers. When a criminal breaks into your home which is faster a police car half way across town or a pistol inside a safe next to your bed? Maybe citizens should just wait for the shooter to shoot himself though, since statistics say he is more likely to shoot himself or should citizens wait for him to run out of bullets and people to shoot. Gun control activists may conclude “Well why not outlaw bullets in guns?, People don’t need many bullets to defend themselves.” But they may need a warning shot , so give you may need to give them one bullet. On the other hand what if they miss ?
However, tragedies such as Sandy Hook give us even more of a reason why firearms shouldn’t be banned. A lethal criminal gunman sees a school as a weaponless haven full of vulnerable victims, making them the easiest places to perform their psychotic plans. I believe that some of these massacres could be prevented if places, such as schools, have a security guard who is armed and trained for these situations. In 2007, a gunman entered a Colorado church and shot and killed two girls. A former police officer who was volunteering at the church “drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else,” as stated in Bennett’s article.
I am sick and tired of hearing all the talk about guns and how their use should be controlled. Why do guns have to be registered? Why do people that desire to have a gun have to pass a background check in order to obtain one? So what if the person desiring a gun is an ex con convicted of armed robbery, out on parole. Is that really any one's business?