Pros And Cons Of Framers

Question 1 The Framers chose to govern the newly founded country by a democracy or a republic. A democracy states, the majority is unlimited, in a democracy there is a lack in any legal safeguard of the rights of the individual and the minority. A republic states, the majority is limited, a republic is governed under a written constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority. The Framer's favored towards having a Republic because they knew that in a pure democracy the Majority’s power is unlimited. Which was something that the Framer's found unappealing because if they chose a democracy it opened the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This why they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy

Another example of the negativity of having an excess of democracy could be seen is with Shay’s Rebellion which showed one of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. With a direct democracy it is run by the people and every decision is made by the people. With this no state was willing to raise an army to put down Shay’s rebellion. On the other hand with a republic the states have to follow the rules stated within the Constitution.A Republic offered something that was able to limit the strength on the central government which was checks and balances within the three branches of the government, which ensured that one branch doesn’t get to strong. The powers of the each branch were specifically outlined by the first three Articles of the Constitution which were Judicial, legislative and executive powers.The Framers also knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards to the people and their rights. Many were fearful that with a democracy they would be a possible development. of Tyranny which would result in the government having complete control and trump the rights of the people.The Republic offered something that was appealing to them such as controlling the majority and others, but also protecting the individual’s unalienable rights and therefore the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of

Maryland there was the issue of whether or not the state had the power to tax the federal government. Also, if the United States can establish a national bank even though not directly mentioned in the Constitution. In this case, Justice Marshall defined the Necessary and Proper Clause and the National Supremacy Clause. A National Bank was needed to be created to carry out the enumerated powers. The creation of the bank was justified because though not clearly mentioned with the Constitution, other powers were mentioned such as the power to collect taxes, to loan money, and to regulate commerce. Obviously, the creation a bank was well within this realm and the federal government was not stepping out of their boundaries. National Supremacy was also expressed with this case because in this case the state of Maryland imposed a tax on the bank. This imposed tax was denied because with the power to tax comes the power to destroy, and in the national supremacy clause it clearly states that no State shall have more power than the federal government. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland which took place in 1819 which was considered the Cooperative Federalism which stated that the national government had more power or authority over with the state government based upon Constitution. During this time period it was decided by the Marshall Court. The Marshall court took place during the years of 1801 till 1835. This changed when it became 1986 and this was