ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Living Under The Constitution

1622 Words7 Pages

In book VII chapter I, right out of the gate, we see a very broad statement “Those who live under the constitution that is best for those in their circumstances will have the best way of life.” (pg 251) In essence this points that the circumstances of people must arise before the constitution does. Meaning also that a constitution must promote the happiness of the majority, for the majority must come up with the constitution lest more than fifty percent of the people fall into dissent. In theory, if this is the case, then the forming of the constitution must be the final product of a city, people must already have found what makes them happy and/or the life they desire, are agreement therein, and decided on a constitution that is …show more content…

On the side of politics we see that to be happy, one must “do well” literally and one has to take an active role and participate in the government. And those who adhere to this view hold that by sticking to philosophy, one by nature prevents themselves from, and denies themselves the opportunity to play an active role in the city. If indeed “happiness is a state of activity”(pg258) and goodness and wisdom are key aspects to happiness, then the argument can be formed that actively participating in politics and applying the principles of being good and wise to that, then happiness can be achieved. Especially if it is indeed true that “…the happiness of the city is the same as that of the individual…”(pg260) That deals with action vs. inaction on the individual level, however, there is another part to that argument and that is whether or not a city should actively participate in the affairs of those around them, or should they stick to themselves. Working under the assumption that in either case, people will be participating in politics, be it in a rotation, or however it is set up, what is best for a city? And is that the same as the best for the individual? The previous quote and argument would seem to indicate that they would have to be the same in order to achieve happiness in the city, and that would mean that the city would have to participate in the affairs of those around them. If that were the case, then this city would be forced to factor in things such as military, be it for defense or

Show More
Related
221 Words | 1 Pages

The United States should adopt the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution provides many advantages and new opportunities. First, the Constitution gives more power to the national government in many ways. For example, under the Articles the national government had to ask the states for money, but under the Constitution the government is provided with money and the power to tax. In addition, the Articles allowed states to regulate trade causing each state to tax one another's products.

Read More
264 Words | 2 Pages

The Constitution came to fruition as an answer for the issues and numerous shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Not every person concurred with the Constitution or even the said issues emerging from the Articles of Confederation. These people were called Anti-Federalists and their thoughts would not be as effective as the thoughts of the Federalists, since Anti-Federalist thought's reflected numerous qualities of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution should have been endorsed with a specific end goal to conjure change and solvethe issues of the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists had the plans to make the country the best is could be, and also sufficiently giving rights to citizens.

Read More
413 Words | 2 Pages

Back in the early days of independant America there had been an ethical dilemma on whether or not they should ratify The U.S constitution. The main two arguments were whether citizens chose to maintain the status quo, or switch to a more centralized government. The two debates were backed up by James madison who wrote the Federalist No.10 for ratification and Patrick Henry who gave a speech against it. In the document James warns about how “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.” referring to someone or a group of people who could possibly create unique factions between on another and disrupt a potential republic.

Read More
1512 Words | 7 Pages

Constitution 1The Constitution of the United States(1787)The development that prompted to the written work of the 1787constitution became out of disappointment with thefunctioning of the Articles of Confederation. Asearly as 1781, there were proposition to amendthe Articles. The key issue was that theCongress had no free saddling power, andwas reliant on the states for commitments itrequested from them. More than once from 1781 to1786 proposition were made for restricted taxingpower, typically a little altered obligation on importedgoods, yet every one foundered on the necessityof getting consistent sanction of all thestates. By 1786, Congress was largelyparalysized.

Read More
668 Words | 3 Pages

1. Personally, I believe the constitution was the better document because it had more power. The articles of confederation gave the states more power than congress had, and because of this states either did was it said or did not. Because of the states having more power over Congress, the states did not focus on the needs of the whole country but only cared for their own state and what is best for their people. The constitution is better because it was easier to make changes and amendments to it.

Read More
196 Words | 1 Pages

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?

Read More
322 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
711 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
176 Words | 1 Pages

The young nation, barely three years old, was dying. Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, America was struggling to hold itself together. The Articles of Confederation, designed during the Revolution, demolished even the inkling of monarchy by forcing the national government to abide by the whim of the states. During the Revolutionary War the states held together out of necessity, but after the war, the states became hostile to their neighbors. It quickly became evident that a serious crisis has settled upon the United States.

Read More
661 Words | 3 Pages

After the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, a sense of nationalism and unity swept across the young United States of America. Unfortunately, with youth, comes inexperience. It did not take long for numerous problems to be noticed under the Articles including a weak central government, no national judicial system, and little coined money. Due to the controversy and disorder arisen by the Articles of Confederation, the delegates of the United States joined for the 2nd Constitutional Convention in 1787 to make reparations. The top scholars of the nation intended to repair the existing government but instead, created a whole new one.

Read More
1626 Words | 7 Pages

The United States Constitution has created much debate since the moment it was conscripted. It has been argued that Constitution of the United States is a document that was drafted in response to the evolution of society. Others have argued that the creation of the Constitution was made as an effort to create a strong national government that was capable of exercising real authority and preservation of ideals in the revolution. The American Constitution is seen as being reactionary because the founders of the Constitution wanted to react to change in restoration of the previous state. The U.S. Constitution is considered reactionary because one should consider the events, documents, and people who participated in the era of the Constitution.

Read More
481 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
538 Words | 3 Pages

Ever since the Constitution was written, chaos has ensued. The states have split into two sides: the Anti-federalists, who oppose the Constitution, and the Federalists, who support the Constitution—both of whom have argued in writings, such as the Federalist Papers. Anti-federalists rightfully believe that a president has enough power to become a tyrant, similar to British kings in the past. Therefore, they request for a Bill of Rights to be added, ensuring that the citizens have power in government as well, in order for them to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-federalists are supported by Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, while the Federalists are prominent in Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,

Read More
751 Words | 4 Pages

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia in 1787, they sought to establish a government that would not only satisfy the current needs of the nation and guard against tyranny, but serve as a guide for future generations as well. The Constitution they drafted continues to shape our country and define our government today, but the Framers could not have possibly predicted all future threats to democracy and liberty that would eventually present themselves. Although measures were taken to prevent the concentration of authority from being held by one individual or one group of individuals, such as the creation of separate branches of government that would check the power of one another, the rise of populist demagogues in the last century has raised the question of whether or not the

Read More
303 Words | 2 Pages

after re-reading some passages of Henry V, I noticed that Shakespeare presents two points of view on the topic of warfare throughout the play. On one hand, war is the means through which Henry can achieve his goal, i.e. invade France and claim the French throne, but, on the other hand, it has terrible consequences. In various passages, war is presented as being ennobling and patriotic. The clearest example is Henry’s famous St. Crispin’s speech, where he insists that the men who fight alongside him will become his “band of brothers” (4.iii.62) and that their victory will bring England honor and glory. However, Henry is a soldier and, therefore, he knows and has experienced the ugly effects of warfare.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Living Under The Constitution

Related Topics

Open Document