Stricte Construction And Literal Interpretation Of The Constitution
From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point
The Democratic-Republicans followed a strict interpretation of the constitution, where Federalists believed that the document was up for interpretation, and followed a loose construction. The Federalists believed that there should be a strong central government and that elected officials should not be directly influenced by the people. Essentially, they believed that the people would make poor decisions, if left to their own devices. They represented the elite and well off of society. The Democratic-Republicans thought that there should be a small central government, meaning that the power stayed with the states.
Constitution DBQ Annalyn McCay The constitution guards against Tyranny in many ways. A tyranny is usually referred to as a person or a group of people that has a lot of power on their hands or having complete control. The constitution guards the U.S. from tyranny by dividing power between the U.S. government and the state governments, it also distribute power between the three branches of government, the Constitution also guards the U.S. from tyranny by having equal representation from all the states. The constitution guards against Tyranny in many ways.
A video by the name of “The Invisible Constitution” is a demonstration based on a book that Laurence Tribe wrote also called “The Invisible Constitution”. Tribe feels that the constitution is a living document because just like human beings, there is change. The constitution does not physically change, but every word in the constitution can be questioned and interpreted differently by each individual. Tribe discusses his own opinion on the constitution and he thinks that most of the document is “invisible”, while others may think that the constitution means exactly what it says.
“The accumulation of all powers… in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many… may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ”-James Madison. Fifty-five delegates, from the thirteen states, met in Philadelphia in May of 1787 to discuss and revise the Articles of Confederation. The chief executive and the representatives worked to create a frame for what is now our Constitution. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in four ways; Federalism that creates a State and Federal government, Separation of Powers that gives equal power to the three branches, Checks and Balances that create balance in the three branches by checking each other and being checked and the Small States vs the Big States ensures an equal voice for all states no matter what their size.
By considering the US constitution a living document, it lends weight to the position that it is indeed a flexible constitution because although there are limited formal amendments that have been passed through Congress over time, the interpretation of the basic principles of the constitution may change to mean different things in line with the
The Constitution was a document that was written by our Founding Fathers. It defines what our government is and what it does. It is the basic blueprint for all the laws in the country and it provides the three branches of the U.S government the power it needs to rule this nation effectively. But the Constitution wasn’t always how it is now, it used to be called the Articles of Confederation and it had many problems that are no longer present in our current Constitution.
The first method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Federalism. Federalism is the division of power between state and national government. In Document A it interprets that the governments will each have a portion of power and not be able to have all the power. This evidence helps explain why the Constitution guards against tyranny because Federalism will allow both governments to have limited powers. Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers.
The Articles of Confederation as a document provided very little power to the federal goverment. The nation that fought for it 's freedom was willing to throw it 's all away by giving the states far too much power for them to handle. The goal at the Constitutional Convention was to create a document that gave enough power to the goverment to run a prospouous nation. The Commerce Clause is Article I,Section 8, Clause 3 in the constitution it allows the federal goverment among states, internationaly and between Native American Tribes.
The Constitution is a counter-transformation on the grounds that the Constitutional Convention was a meeting to totally update the Articles of Confederation, and that record fundamentally illustrated the administration at that period in time. Since an insurgency is a move towards a changed government, that would make the Constitution an unrest, and it is countering the disappointments of the Articles of Confederation. It is additionally a counter-transformation since a few provisions were placed in it to counteract uprisings, for example, that of Daniel (Shays ' Rebellion). Counter-transformation, in that sense, implied the Constitution was attempting to anticipate future upheavals. The Constitutional Convention additionally settled a legislature
In 1777 congress adopted the Articles Of Confederation which failed to give the United States an effective government so most the power went to the Federal government. The Articles of Confederation had many problems that would loss of power in the government. The Federal government wanted power in the national government and felt the Constitution would help manage the debt. The Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and wanted limited federal power. Congress had done things that benefited the United States while the second continental congress created a government that lacked power which cause problems.
Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
Two changes I would make in the constitution both fall into the second article. This is the article concerning the presidential election process and duties. While other articles could of course be modified in some way or another, I find that the two changes I came up with could be agreed with by almost everyone. I tried to make these decision not based on how I feel about politics and my beliefs, but instead I made my decisions based on what is best for everybody. I wanted to put my political affiliation aside for this question because in the grand scheme of things what I will suggest are things that could legitimately be addressed without too much complication.
The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.
The Constitution of the united states of America means to me my rights as an American citizen. The constitution makes me feel safe from the government because it protects my rights. It lets me know the government power over the people, and the laws they can make and the laws they can not make. The Constitution ensures my freedom as an American. It is a very important document for the United States of American for the president to follow.
More about Stricte Construction And Literal Interpretation Of The Constitution
James Kent's Commentaries On American Law
364 Words | 2 PagesThe Democratic-Republicans: Strict Interpretation Of The Constitution
158 Words | 1 PagesConstitution Guards Against Tyranny Dbq
237 Words | 1 PagesThe Invisible Constitution Summary
421 Words | 2 PagesConstitution Guard Against Tyranny Analysis
882 Words | 4 PagesElastic Clause
933 Words | 4 PagesCauses And Flaws Of The Articles Of Confederation
310 Words | 2 PagesConstitution Protects Against Tyranny
323 Words | 2 PagesConstitutional Convention: Documentative Analysis
264 Words | 2 PagesThe Constitution: The Counter-Transformation Of The Constitution
173 Words | 1 PagesProblems Under The Articles Of Confederation
615 Words | 3 PagesJustice Thurgood Marshall Analysis
1324 Words | 6 PagesTwo Changes In The Constitution Essay
611 Words | 3 PagesAdvantages Of The Living Constitution Approach
391 Words | 2 PagesWhat The Constitution Means To Me
301 Words | 2 Pages