Expressed within the US Constitution is Congress' authority to write laws, while the Executive Branch is firmly restricted to enacting the laws. However, in 200 years' time, Executive power has consistently enacted arbitrary laws, and governed with unconstitutional agencies and czars. Greg Abbott's proposed Constitutional amendments recalibrate federal power by banning the executive branch from writing laws. The history of executive overreach is long and illustrious.
When the Constitution was first drafted in Philadelphia, 1787, there was strong opposition to it from the supporters of the Articles of Confederation, America’s first governing document. One of the starkest Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, believed the Constitution was a gateway to power for tyrants, similarly, Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed the Constitution’s ratification, believing the Constitution would strip Americans of their freedoms and liberties. Despite their efforts, the Constitution was signed into law, and is now contrarily viewed as that which protects Americans’ rights. The US Constitution is a more democratic document than the Articles of Confederation because under the Articles there was no proportional representation, Americans did not directly vote for any representatives in Congress under the Articles, and the Constitution implemented federal income taxes were able to fund a government that could effectively protect the rights of American citizens.
Instead of a revision though, the delegates met and decided to create a new government and ratified its guidelines, the Constitution, with only nine states’ approval. This was illegal according to the Articles of Confederation, where it stated, “nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them [articles]; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” This blatant disregard for the law and the wishes of the general public shows that the American government at that time was more tyrannical than the republic it portrayed itself as. Thomas Paine, a popular Revolutionist writer of the time, wrote on law and monarchs, “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king.” Despite Paine voicing the opinion of the public, that is not what happened when they called for a rewrite of the Articles of Confederation.
It is said, that the United States Constitution quite difficult to amend. But since the way it is set up, the amendments are not as frequent as they could be. It has truly only been amended 27 times, since the 10 that were apart of it. While in the Texas Constitution it is the complete opposite way to amend, which is why it has been amended over 100 times, because of its specificity and details. It is also said, that it is not so easy to get an amendment proposed, because of the fact that you need a 2/3 vote of the full membership of both houses of the legislature.
In order to ratify, three-fourths of all state legislatures must ratify or three-fourths must approve via Ratifying Conventions. Initiative and referendum are powers granted to the electorate by the constitution of several states and refer to the processes that allow voters to vote directly on certain legislation. They represent direct check on democracy as people can exercise their powers to accept or reject a piece of legislation. Texas does not provide for this, however, states such Arizona has initiated statues and amendments and New Mexico has referendum only. The current Texas Constitution is ridiculed by scholars as being a burden by excessive detail, outdated and contradictory provisions as well as too hard to amend and it is too unclear in outlining the separation of powers which exists in Texas.
The Constitution is a piece of paper that is meant to change and grow as a nation it changes and grows. The formal amendment process includes two steps, proposal and ratification. An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress. The amendment can then be ratified either by the agreement of three-fourths of the states’ legislatures
Following the end of the American Revolution marked a new set of problems for the United States. As impending war debts were threatening to crush the new nation, America knew they needed to address the flaws of the Articles of Confederation through a Constitutional Convention. The United States Constitution of 1787 was created in hopes of developing a stronger and more effective governing body while still upholding America’s virtues of freedom. Unfortunately, with change, comes opposition, and many people feared that the Constitution would be oppressive and undermine the autonomy of the individual states through its strong central government. Because of this, the issues that sparked the greatest controversies during the ratification of the
The Constitution DBQ The Constitution of United States is regarded by many as an important document, for it gave the common people the power to form a government the way they want. Yet, despite all the benefits that it brought to the American people at the time, people also had some concerns about the Constitution such as: it is creating a Central government that is too powerful, only white men that owns property are allowed to vote, not everyone in the nation are treated equally, etc. When the Constitution was first being drafted, Representatives from each state hoped to add terms that would benefit their own states—this lead to a heated debate on how the Constitution should be formed.
This, combined with numerous stalemate in votes due to clashing parties, led to the amendment Didn’t support Various senators were against the election by the people, because they were afraid of the power being given to the people. Introduced and ratified? Proposed amendments were passed in 1910 and 1911.
Paragraph 1: The Australian constitution is what’s known as a set of rules in which Australia is run. The Australian constitution came into effect on the 1st of January in 1901, which was brought in by the Commonwealth of Australia. It has shaped the Australian society is now. It describes the composition, roles and powers of the federal Parliament.
Michael Gist Professor Kimberly Pace Government 2305 13 March 2015 Amendments Changes are made to the constitution in different manners. There is a formal and informal process of changing the constitution. Amendments to the constitution can only be done formally. Formal changes to the constitution are amendments that are voted on by legislatures. A two thirds majority is required to propose an amendment and a three fourths vote is required to ratify the amendment.
During the Progressive era, the role of our federal government was being rethought—the “…traditional assumption that a powerful government posed a threat to freedom” (Foner 699) was beginning to be rejected. During this time, citizens of the United States began to realize that they needed more political freedom in order to obtain a government that worked for and with them, not one that was overrun by corporate mongrels as seen during the Gilded Age. As a step towards change, in early 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, and it was something that would expand political freedom like never before. The Seventeenth Amendment changed our election process—senators would now be chosen by popular vote instead of directly by state legislators. In addition to this, some states even introduced the systems of initiative, referendum, and recall.
Australiais referred to as a Federal system of Government as it both a Parliamentary Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy. Australia is a federation made up of six states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) which have their own constitutions, parliaments, governments and laws under three self- governing Territories. (“aph.gov.au”, 2013) In this system of government the powers are distributed between the six states and a national government.
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
LEGAL STUDIES FINAL – JOSH TAYLOR A Bill of Rights is a piece of legislation that protects basic human rights, that almost all Western countries have - except Australia. It 's a basic necessity in many governments globally, listing out the entitlements and rights of a group of people. The Australian public has a right to have the protection of a Bill of Rights, because without it, what are we really entitled to? In this essay, many topics are to be explored - from the Bill of Rights itself, to the Australian Constitution, the impacts that a Bill of Rights could have on stakeholders from various backgrounds, and a comprehensive explanation on why Australia should have a Bill of Rights.
