In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).
It 's never good for a new country to fight over its very foundation. In the USA’s case the foundation was the constitution, and the disagreement was over how to interpret the document. The amendments and code of conduct are listed in the constitution so this dispute was for the better of the country. The Federalists believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution.
The us constitution and the Articles of Confederation are similar but different in many ways. The articles of confederation line out the basic ideas of government and written in the US Constitution are the expanded ideas that make the United States Unique. The Articles of confederation #7 states that all of the United States of America have to vote for the ratification of one thing. This was established to keep silly laws/acts to the Articles of Confederation from being amended but as more important amendments had to ratified it became nearly impossible to have all of the state representatives vote together for the ratification of one thing.
The two constitution I am gonna compare are the United States of America constitution, and the Canadian constitution. Like the U.S constitution, the Canadian constitution is mostly the same since it got many of its laws from the U.S constitution. Both constitution have many provinces that they are divided into since the place is too big, as well as to divide power, as well as that they both have an executive power since they need someway to be able to divide the power. Unlike the U.S, Canada has a Queen that controls the executive government. Canada has its own version of the Bill Of Rights called Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the end of its constitution.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
Edmund Burke once said, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." (Burke 36) A country 's constitution needs mechanisms in place to make amendments because as progress is made the landscape of a country is altered. Times change and people change. Constitutions are stories nations tell about themselves (Adams 3), how they wish to protect their citizens and how it must "provide more than a legal blueprint for governance" (Adams 2)
Because of its vagueness, it will continue to adapt with the times. It can be determined that the Constitution was a good first step in the right
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
In Danielle Allen’s article for The Atlantic, “The Flawed Genius of the Constitution,” she explores her opinion regarding the U.S. Constitution through analyzing its origin along with its current standing as a historical document. The Constitution is arguably one of the most fundamental legal documents that continues to define our nation today. However, the foundation of the Constitution and its initial implications have been frowned upon for decades. Two of the most essential aspects of the Constitution, universal suffrage and freedom for all, were not defended by the document upon its initial ratification. As such, to be “in support” of the constitution is a convoluted claim with many connotations; in her article, Allen works to sort through
John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is echoed in the Declaration of Independence, particularizing the importance and necessity of the “consent of the governed”. Seventeen years before James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights enumerating “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” John Dickinson, author of the Articles of Confederation, wrote his Petition to the King, a formal list of injustices committed by King George III. The inherent right to peacefully express discontent with the actions of the government is the cornerstone of American democracy. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, Thomas Jefferson suggested the Constitution be rewritten every nineteen years.
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.
The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.
The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.
The British Empire was considered one of the greatest empires ever seen in history; it was considered the empire where the sun never sets on. Well after years some countries gained its independence from the British colonies like the United States of America; which is now considered one of the most powerful states in the 21st century. The American and British relation is friendly since of the reasons is that they have common interests, same origin and Elizabeth English. Although both of these countries have many things in common but most importantly they differ due to their political systems based on their constitution, executive, legislature, judiciary, political parties and the style of politics. Constitutions sort out, circulate and direct
Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system.
