The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the heads of federal executive departments who form the Cabinet of the United States. The Cabinet currently has fifteen members, beginning with the Secretary of State, and followed by the rest in the order of their positions' creation. Those heads of department who are ineligible to act as President are also ineligible to succeed the President by succession, for example most commonly if they are not a natural-born U.S. citizen. In 1792, Congress passed the first presidential succession act. This act was fraught with political wrangling between the Federalists and Antifederalists, as much early U.S. policy
Every president is either praised for helping advance a nation, or castigated for not doing anything. The success of a president is reliant on the success of the country. It seems that no matter the amount of work they put in during their time in office someone always has negative comments. If the majority of the country doesn’t stand behind the president nothing will be accomplished. The people are needed to help vote on bills put in place along with voting on who would make the best representatives.
If trump gets elected into presidency his primary goal is to deport 11 million immigrant families that live on the U.S. Im not sure if he is talking about non US citizens or families that have expiring visas. He spoke them being forced out of their homes, jobs, and schools by the police at anytime. If he succeeds-which he won’t; there will be billions of dollars gone for his selfish request to supposedly “make America great again” but its people like him that make America what it is today . We as a nation are in debt for billion of dollars as it is , so if he is elected to be president then us as a nation are basically going in a downward spiral because we already owe trillions of dollars.
Many of the state conventions ratified the Constitution, but called for amendments specifically protecting individual rights from abridgement by the federal government. The debate raged for months. By June of 1788, 9 states had ratified the Constitution, ensuring it would go into effect for those 9 states. However, key states including Virginia and New York had not ratified. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, knew that grave doubts would be cast on the Constitution if those states (the home states of several of its chief architects, including Madison himself) did not adopt it.
Before ratifying the Constitution, a constitutional convention was called in 1787 to change the Articles of Confederation. This meant that each state had only one vote in Congress, and the size didn’t matter. The debate was between the federalists and Anti-Federalist, one side wanted to ratify the constitution and the other side didn’t. It was not easy because there were documents and articles both supporting and going against it. Who are the federalists?
1. The Constitution originally lacked a Bill of Rights. George Mason from Virginia presented a proposal to add a bill of rights to the document. But his offer was voted down.
Article Five of the United States Constitution clearly spells out ways to amend the document as so desired by Congress or the States. Regarding this specific topic, there have been recent debates over whether there should be a Constitutional Convention comprised of state legislatures developed for the sole purpose of bypassing congress in amending the Constitution. Before I watched the debate, I decided against this notion as I personally do not have any knowledge, presently, of how to amend the constitution. Therefore, there should not be a convention to do just that. Although the opposing side brought some real issues to light regarding the ideas of “Draining the Swamp”, using “True Democracy” for one person equals one vote/one state equals one vote, and stating that re-electing new congressional officials hasn’t changed anything either.
Federalists believed the Constitution provided just the right mix of power and limitations. The federalists wanted to make sure the central government either had more or less power. The first government of the US was a one-house legislature with no executive. It couldn't raise money, it relied on the states for military power, and was generally seen as ineffective and weak. The US Constitution was written to remedy those weaknesses and provide the US with a better, more representative form of government.
There are countless Arguments both for and against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Some of the main arguments of the Federalist include that a strong National government offered protection for the people’s rights, the government would benefit from a 3 branch system and a system of checks and balances needed to be created. Some of the main ideas of the anti-federalist were that the National Government would have too much power, a Bill of Right needed to be added, the constitutions effect of the government would be too tyrannical, and that the federal court system would be too powerful. Considered the Father of the Constitution, James Madison was detrimental in the creation In the US Constitution.
A government institution that is constantly questioned is the Electoral College. There are many positive and negative elements of the Electoral College. Many argue if we should keep it in our election system. The Electoral College has always been a very controversial issue in American politics.
The new constitution couldn’t please everyone. Some people liked it but some didn't. The two sides were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of ratifying the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. They would have debates about ratifying the Constitution.
Every president has a certain agenda towards accomplishing things for the country during their time in office. It isn’t easy to follow those agendas though over the course of
Though unlikely to be at the forefront of any 2016 presidential platforms, the Electoral College is a widely contested issue among partisans, many of who believe that a better method exists for selecting the President of the United States. This anti-Electoral College sentiment is also present among Americans nationwide, Republicans and Democrats alike. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 61% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats would vote to do away with the Electoral College. In today’s contentious political atmosphere, in which Republicans and Democrats are constantly at odds with one another, any level of agreement between the parties clearly indicates that a change needs to be made. Changes are already starting to occur at the state level,
What is the electoral college? It is the system that the United States of America uses to elect its president and vice president, and while many argue about its effectiveness, its disadvantages are alarming. It was outlined and created in the Constitution in Article II, Section I, Clause II, because the framers of the Constitution feared democracy. This system allows for a group of people to formally cast their respective state’s vote for the election of the president and vice president every four years, on the basis of who wins the majority in the General Election in their state. Although it was created with the best intentions by the writers of the Constitution, we now believe that this system, the electoral college, is not the most fair
Arguments for amending the constitution: For decades the people of Catalonia and other autonomous communities in Spain have fought for independence and the right to hold a referendum on the subject. This would hold many implications for Spain and the European union. These would be beneficial to Spain as the rest of the peninsula would not have to cater for the need of groups who culturally identify as non-spanish. This means that there would be no parliamentary quota of MPs from communities that have no interest in the rest of Spain. The European union would also benefit as the current financial success of Catalonia would strengthen Europe’s economy.
