Ernie Law Zink 3° US History 15 September 2016 DBQ Essay When the delegates met in 1787 they aimed to fix the national government. The previous governmental charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed because it was just too weak and wasn’t getting the job done. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no court system, no chief executive, and there was no particular way for the central government to force states to pay their taxes. By creating the Constitution, it would build a stronger central government and would be able to hold the nation together.
Edwards and Wattenberg define Federalism as, “a way of organizing a nation so that two or more levels of government share formal authority over the same area and people. (Edwards and Wattenburg,70)” When the United States first started to form a central government their objective was to never allow for a dominating power to take over the country again. To do so they created a division of power and made it possible for states and more so the “people” the right to have more of an impact on government. Or so were their intended thoughts when creating the constitution and the branches. In doing so their focus constrained national government but left a loose string as to what the states and their constitutions could do.
The Constitution… An improvement from a government that proved to be ill-conceived. The Articles of Confederation had not worked in the way that the states had hoped. A solution was to be found in the May of 1787 (BE). This solution was the Constitution.
The argument between the Federalists and the Antifederalists principally centre on the Artivles of Confederation-Consitution. The Federalists and the Antifederalists have thier interpretions wheather the fedel government necessarliy exits or not. The Federalists believe that the relationship between fedel government and fifty states governments is stable and helpful. In contrast, the Antifederalists oppose this political struture and democratic goals, so that they think that the exitence of fedel government suppose to get corrupt. On the other hand, the Federalists and the Antifederalists also have different views about slaveries.
Mini-Q Essay Do you like when someone thinks they have all power over everything? Well neither did James Madison. This essay is about tyranny and what Madison did to keep this from happening. Tyranny is when one person or group has all the power.
Each party present during the drafting of the Constitution had their own ideas about what it should accomplish. As a result, it was very difficult to formulate a document that appeased all groups and parties, who often voiced their opinions of how it should be written. The U.S. Constitution was the father of many worries concerning the rights of the people, the role of government, and the balance between the aristocrats and poor, the government and the people. The Federalists, or supporters of the Constitution, were not completely satisfied with the task they were given. They were supposed to revise the old Articles of Confederation, but they felt like it needed to be completely rewritten.
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was in shambles. Having left the rule of the British Crown, the States desired a government far from their previous predecessor. However, having given tremendous power to the states and very little to the federal, there was much chaos. A prime example of the failure of this document was Shay’s Rebellion, when farmers rebelled against government officials for debt that they could not repay due to faults in the Articles. Consequently, a new Constitution had to be ratified which resulted in many compromises between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
This rivalry among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists signified a controversial democracy which focused upon the national government consuming an amount of authority they should accept. Alexander Hamilton represented the Federalists as Thomas Jefferson represented the Anti-Federalists who promptly announced themselves the Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republicans solicited power towards the state government considering they "believe" in an egalitarian civilization that would develop to preserve the individuals' preferences. However, the Federalists suppose that the state governments were exceedingly constitutional since it would lead to unfairness towards the "elites" moreover critical for the economy. The Anti-Federalists believes
The first government of the United States was outlined in the Articles of Confederation written in 1871. Under this system, the states operated as sovereign nations. The weak national government, which consisted of nothing more than a unicameral legislature, did not have the authority to tax the states, settle interstate disputes or effectively support a military. Following the Revolutionary War, the inadequacies of the national government became apparent. This led to the drafting of the Constitution in 1787.
The Constitution uses Federalism to equally divide power between the central government and state governments. Separation of power then divides the central government’s power into three branches:Legislative, Judicial,and Executive. Finally, Checks and Balances provides a way for each branch to control each other. Although some people say that Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances don’t protect us from tyranny, what they don’t realize is that these important tools help equally divide and control power. So, next time you worry about the government taking control of everything, remember that the constitution is there to protect
The Federalists and the Anti federalists have a lot of arguments, and that is why America can be developed and become to more powerful in the world. First of all, the Federalists are the people who support the present relationship between the federal government and governments of the fifty states, which came into effect with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. On the other hand, the Anti federalists are those who oppose the current political structure. The tussle between these two groups can be traced back to the 18th century, when the committee which met to revise the Articles of Confederation concluded that its revision was not feasible and the entire constitution had to be rewritten. The Civil War was a fight to preserve the
Not only is there a federal government, but there are also state and local governments. Furthermore, there are forms of government that function on a higher basis than local governments, but on a lower basis than state governments. Although the federal government has overall control on how the country functions, the other forms of government have a considerable impact on the laws of each area. All states have varying laws that lie along the same lines. For instance, the age to get a Driver’s license is not the same from state to state, but they are around the same age.
Federalism Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal government, state government and provinces government. While federalism has many benefits, among them is checks and balances between the federal and state government, thus reducing the chances of one party getting too powerful and abusing their power. Preventing one party from being too powerful and abusing their powers is a good thing. However, it comes with a price that federal and provinces (state and local) governments do not always see eye to eye and agree with each other, which turns into conflict.
The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia. There are generally two types of trials, criminal and civil. The jurisdiction of the courts in civil or criminal matters are contained in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the High Court in Malaya, and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Thus this creates two separate local jurisdiction of the courts – for Peninsular Malaysia and for East Malaysia.
