Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Usa constitution pros and cons
Pros and cons of the us constitution
Pros and cons of the us constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Usa constitution pros and cons
Pros and cons of the us constitution
Pros and cons of the us constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Usa constitution pros and cons
The primary argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they imagined that the administration would be made would be too effective and they would simply be making ready for another government like the one that they had quite recently contended so energetically to free themselves from England. They likewise needed to include a Bill of Rights before endorsing the constitution and not afterward. The Pros are that the report had expressed to give trust against the unfeeling and unlawful demonstration of decision the american colonies. Freedom of development which is under Article IV. This area said the security and interminable associations and organization among the natives of the rose country.
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.
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.
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.
The Article of Confederation was created in 1776, after the American revolution. In 1787 The Articles of Confederation was re-written during The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The reason for rewriting it was because of it being a weak central government. No one person was allowed all the power in fear of being like the British. The Congress at the time was made up of one delegate from the thirteen states.
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.
One last thing the constitution has that stopped tyranny rule was making sure the smaller states got a fair vote in congress compared to the bigger states. They had a meeting called the constitutional convention where they proposed two distinct plans. The first was the Virginia plan where they favored large states, and wanted it to be based off of population. The second one was the New jersey plan which favored small states, and gave each state an equal amount of votes. They eventually came up with the great compromise, where they proposed that congress would be composed of the senate, and the house of representatives.
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.
of the Constitution to the states for consideration. To amend the Articles of Confederation had required unanimous approval of the states. The delegates agreed to change the approval process for the Constitution so only nine of the thirteen states had approved. After this, the new government of the United States would come into existence.
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.
My Fellow Delegates it has become evident that the Articles of Confederation are not functioning for our country. Under this form of government we are too weak and have no power. Our ideals of creating a government where we do not have power to enforce laws, collect taxes, raise an army, or even regulate trade is not functioning. We cannot give our states this much power, we must have more power as a federal government. Seeing that we have a weak federal government, we have a lack of legitimacy and are unable to repay the money we borrowed to fight the Revolutionary War.
Although the ‘New World’ declared independence in 1776, by 1787 the United States of America had yet to agree on a constitution that would satisfy the varying needs of each existing state. One of the major debates was over whether the new legislature would give each state representatives based on that state's population or if each state would have equal representation. The larger states desired more influence with proportional representation, but the smaller ones feared that their views would be encroached on if such a system were put into place. The proposal came from Roger Sherman, a Superior Court Judge of Connecticut, who had previously been a delegate during the independence debates of 1776.
History is written by the victors, is a common saying used to describe the inequality of information available from different viewpoints of an issue. This idea holds true when it comes to the United State’s Constitution. For years, American students are taught all the positives of the document with little attention to the negatives. But those against the ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-federalists, had valid issues with the Constitution, some of which are still relevant almost 230 years in the future. The Constitution, legally speaking, shouldn’t even have been created.
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.
Parliamentarism, or a parliamentary government, is defined “as a system of government in which the executive, the government, is chosen by and is responsible to…the legislature.” (Gerring, Thacker and Moreno, 2005, p. 15) With this form of governmental control, many advantages and disadvantages arise, especially when this system is compared to the likes of ‘Presidential systems’ or even that of ‘Semi-presidential systems’. However, my aim within this essay is to, both, highlight to advantages of parliamentarism, and to also give my opinion as to why this system is better when compared and contrasted with the aforementioned systems. According to Hague and Harrop (2007, p. 336), there are three different branches relating to the parliamentary system. Firstly, the legislature and the executive are “originally linked”.