IV. Addressing the opposition A. Argument 1 The Plaintiff has argued that this regulation is in best interest for the public and provides security for the society as a whole. They want the regulation to be considered Constitutional because it was voted on by the majority and therefore, it is in the best interest of the community and should therefore be enacted. This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that women are citizens. Women have never been legally declared persons in this country, not by the Founding Fathers, not by the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court. The Fifteenth Amendment guarantees to right to vote to all U.S. citizens, whatever their race, whether they had been born free or born a slave, but it didn’t include women the right to vote. Women fought along for the abolition of slavery. When the battle was won, black men got the right to vote.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). The Constitution is by far the most important document in our country's history. It provides rules and restrictions for the government and the power it can hold. It ensures the stability for our country’s survival.
Sophia Pienciak Mr. Kotlewski Period 8 17 January 2017 Latter Amendments Essay Martha Griffiths a lawyer once said, “This amendment [the Equal Rights Amendment], if passed, would be like a beacon which should awaken nine sleeping Rip Van Winkle 's to the fact that the twentieth century is passing into history.” A summary of the twenty-fourth amendment is banning poll taxes. That means that in the 1800’s to 1900’s they used to make you pay to vote for a President or a Vice President. This amendment was important to our country.
The Articles of Confederation structured the first government of the thirteen states. The thirteen states included: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. However, Rhode Island did not vote to revise the Articles right away. Therefore, the proposals of the Constitution continued to be declined by the other states due to not having a balance on votes. When Rhode Island finally sent a representative to the Constitution Convention, the Constitution was approved.
A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.
1. The Constitution’s ratification process included arguments for and against ratification by Federalists and Anti-Federalists, respectively. Describe and evaluate the arguments expressed by both of these groups. The arguments the Federalists used in support of the ratification of the Constitution include a decrease in strength and authority of the federal government under the currently designated Articles of Confederation (Bardes, Shelly, Schimdt, 2015, pp.
On July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth amendment was formally introduced to the Constitution and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” These words have as an ideal purpose that all levels of the federal government must operate within the law and provide fair conditions for all people. As a result, the states had a obligation to the public. Through the Fourteenth amendment, states were forbidden from denying any person “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or to “deny any person within jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the Fourteenth amendment also expanded civil rights to African American slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War.
It has been argued that birthright citizenship, or the legal right to citizenship for all children born in a country 's territory, regardless of parentage, may reward/encourage illegal immigrant parents an excuse to stay in the country. Despite this possibility, the 14th Amendment should not be modified. The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” (U.S. Const. amend.
Repeal of The 17th Amendment: Current Context The seventeenth amendment is the amendment to the United States’ constitution that was ratified on April 8th, 1913. It revoked the election of senators by state legislatures and gave the duty of electing senators to American citizens directly. The seventeenth amendment is not currently being proposed by congress; however, many conflicting opinions about the seventeenth amendment’s effect on federalism in the United States result in debates among political parties regarding whether it should be repealed. The Tea Party movement, a political party that stems from the Republican Party and became prominent in 2009, emphasizes negative outcomes of the seventeenth amendment and how a repeal would benefit
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. The ERA has always been highly controversial regarding the meaning of equality for women. Middle-class women generally were supportive.
Right now a debate is occurring about whether not we should ratify the Constitution. This is an important moment in our country's history because this is the moment where we could unify and become a government or we could disapprove of the Constitution and have troubles between the country. The Articles of Confederation were not very credible because it gave the states too much power; which were too weak. The debts were not getting payed and the country was in great trouble. The Constitution would let the power will lie with the wealthy men, and not give the power to the states to raise money to pay off debt; the country will still remain in debt if we ratify the Constitution.
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil
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 notion of a living Constitution has greatly developed the American system. It has brought innovative perspectives on how the courts should be responding to constitutional situations. As well, it creates a basis for society to grow through means of acceptance and progressive viewpoints. The constitution should not be used to fit policy outcomes, and that would be the intent originalists seem to push for. Furthermore, there are two distinct reasons why the argument for the living constitution is stronger then the argument for the original intent.
