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 composers of the U.S. Constitution needed to empower government activity; the designers of the Texas Constitution needed to incapacitate government activity. While the U.S. Constitution makes a unitary official that packs official power in the president, the Texas Constitution makes a plural official that scatters official power over numerous chose workplaces, along these lines dividing the official branch of government and averting control over the official branch from gathering in any one individual or office. One purpose of intrigue, be that as it may, concern the CEO's energy to veto bills go by the governing body. The detail veto in the Texas Constitution permits the senator to veto particular things contained inside apportionments
Addressing the secession of many southern states, Lincoln said “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” The U.S. could not be legally broken up. The Constitution does not allow for such a form of divide. The U.S. already tried operating as separate states in the form of the Articles of Confederation. An attempt like that has already been made, with little success.
The colonies that currently compose the British claims in North America are forced to make a decision. We have been under the oppressive rule of Europe for too long. Our minor claims for self-rule and independence have seemingly been laughed at by our English counterparts, and without decisive action we will remain stagnant in our goals. Although there are flaws in the currently proposed constitution, we must accept what we have written and continue to work towards a more perfect union. The currently proposed constitution has come from months of progress and many meetings of The Constitutional Convention.
The United States is a highly legalized country. The concept of the Constitution was deeply rooted into the country's life. It can be said that the origin of the United States Constitution is the gun dispute as the core. According to the Second Amendments of the US Constitution, people have the right to keep and possess arms. The purpose is to ensure that the state power is not violated, and it is a restriction for Federation.
If the Constitution was not supported by the majority of states, numerous problem would occur. The constitution was made to solve problems caused by the articles of confederation and by receiving the nation. The Articles of Confederation had some positives aspects of it but generally it lacked any power. If the Constitution was not ratified, the nation would still be possibly dealing with issues such as taxation, slavery and unity.
In the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new American states, recently British colonies, met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. By September, they had produced a document that then began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratification. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the national government would function, but it did not contain a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citizens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights were not needed.
I feel that the US Constitution is somewhat outdated, and is in need of a revision. As everybody knows, the world has changed a lot in the past 250 years. These changes are things like transportation, total number of people in the world, and major things like the internet and technology. The events and problems that the Constitution solved years ago are a lot different than the problems that we face today. However, some of the more universal and basic rules of the constitution should not be subject to change because they still apply to today.
e Constitution, there are several rules and regulations that are clearly stated that allow the government to know exactly how to rule the country. However, the creators of the Constitution also left somethings out so that future leaders could determine and interpret laws in a way where they were not really restricted to doing something one specific way. This helps a lot when it comes to the changing of times because the time during in which the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the environment of the nation was much different from what it currently is today. The Constitution, from then to now, has barely been changed which truly shows how well thought out it was compared to say the earlier government called the Articles of Confederation,
We all know how the story goes, right? England owns the 13 colonies. England taxes us unreasonably and sends troops into our houses. We have the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party, then a man writes a pamphlet and convinces the colonies to go to war against England. We write a letter to England telling them how brutal they were to us and that we’re breaking up with them.
Even though the Articles have some major flaws, the Constitution should not be approved because of its own dangers it brings. For one, we Americans just spent years fighting for our independence from Britain due to the unfair treatment inflicted Britain’s strong government. If we approve the Constitution, our own central government would become much stronger, and potentially we could end up in the same situation once again. Additionally, we broke away from Britain because many people disliked the idea of a King in charge. Under the Constitution, a president would be elected and given four years of rule; in this long period of time, a president could easily take his power and authority over the army to unfairy govern the States, lead us into
Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, once said, “The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straight jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” In 1787 the delegates from twelve out of thirteen sates attended the Constitutional Convention. They threw away the Articles of Confederation and wrote Constitution of the United States. Many residences were hesitant to the sudden change, but as time went along people came around to the fact that the Constitution was useful.
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
The American Constitution was controversial from the beginning. The Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 and it was ratified on June 21, 1788. The entire plan of the U.S. Constitution was to create a document and draft to govern all the Colonies efficiently. Continental congress invited representatives of each of the 13 colonies to Independence Hall in Philadelphia to begin the writing process and creating the draft. 12 states chose to send a total amount of 55 delegates.
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
