“Elastic Clause”. This clause is also often referred to as the “necessary and proper” or the “sweeping” clause. It can be found in article 1, section 8 of the constitution, clause 18. The “elastic clause” puts forward that Congress has the power to pass any law that they have deemed to be both necessary and proper to implement the powers that have already been delegated to the Congress. (U.S Const., art. I, §8). In essence, this clause offers a way for the US Congress to “achieve its’ constitutional mandated ends”(The Heritage Foundation, 2011). The purpose of this clause to allow the organisation of the government, while also helping to effectuate the power of Congress, and in doing so it introduces a great deal of flexibility to the constitution.
In the past 200 years the constitution has been amended 27 times. Such as the 13th amendment in 1865 forever banning the practice of slavery and the 15th amendment in 1870 gave all citizens the right to vote regardless of their race. The founding fathers knew that many things in America would change overtime which meant that changes to the constitution is something that would likely happen. That's why article 5 of the constitution says that "
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. After the recent ballot measure adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate, was challenged on the grounds that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
There are many differing views on the powers congress holds, and congress itself, one such point of view is on whether or not congressmen should have a limited number of terms they are capable of serving, similar to how the president is only capable of serving two terms, and whether or not it would benefit both the people and the government. Congress itself is the legislative branch of the federal government, and as such holds a large amount of authority and power, including putting laws into effect, declaring war, taxing, impeachment, and many other important duties that can be carries out only by congress. Furthermore, members of congress do not have limits on the amount of terms they are allowed to serve, only limits on the length of each term, for those in the house of representatives each term is two years, while in the senate, each term is six years long. I find this to be a matter of public concern because many
In the years 1787 and 1788 right after the Constitutional Convention, many people argued over the context of the constitution. The ratification started when the Congress turned the Constitution over to the state legislatures. Because most of the framers had already decided to discard the Articles of Confederation when drafting the Constitution, the lack of people following the articles made the legislatures feel that an unanimous vote was unnecessary. The delegates agreed that approval from only 9 of the 13 states would be adequate to ratify the United States Constitution. However, the process to ratifying the constitution was difficult including groups of people and regions who supported or opposed the ratification.
Term limits can be divided into two categories: consecutive and lifetime. In consecutive term limits, a legislator is limited to serving a particular number of years in a chamber. After meeting the limit in that chamber, he or she may run for election to a different chamber or
The constitution was signed and sent out to the states in 1787, but was not ratified until 1788. During this time in the states the constitution caused a great deal of controversy. While some, the Federalists, believed that a constitution is exactly what was needed, others, the Anti-Federalists, felt that a constitution severely needed a bill of rights. There are many reasons a bill of rights was included in the constitution. Although it was not in the first copy, it was promised to be in the next one if nine states would ratify it. The Anti-Federalists also believed that a constitution without a bill of rights would give excessive power to the federal government over individual states and the people. Also there was fear that a constitution
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
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.
May 1787. 55 delegates, one long, sweaty conference. The Constitutional Convention was a huge event for the United States. During this convention, the 55 delegates from all states except Rhode Island met up to change their Articles of Confederation. Instead of editing, however, the 55 delegates rewrote the whole thing into the Constitution, which is still used today. The delegates wrote this Constitution with tyranny in mind; how could the Constitution guard against one person or group from gaining too much power? The Constitution protects against tyranny because the 55 delegates established: federalism, separation of powers, checks & balances, and equal representation.
The Constitution of the United States was formed 223 years ago. Since 1787, a lot has changed. We grew as a country, technology advanced, and we elected 43 different presidents. One of witch, being the first African-American President in history. Due to its age, some may argue that the Constitution is irrelevant to today’s problems. However, the Constitution is relevant. The Constitution is still relevant today because, it guarantees rights and freedoms to citizens, gives our country guidelines, and prevents a government from having too much power. America’s past, present, and future are bound and kept free by the Constitution. That is what makes the Constitution relevant. In a few words, the Constitution is the United States.
“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society. In the very beginning or the “birth,” of our United States government we did not have a constitution, in fact the democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The American government went through several trial and errors to see what worked and what did not before creating and establishing the U.S. Constitution.
The Plaintiff has argued that this regulation is in best interest for the public and provides security for the society as a whole. They want the regulation to be considered Constitutional because it was voted on by the majority and therefore, it is in the best interest of the community and should therefore be enacted. This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government. This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied. This is not something that happens frequently, and only three amendments have been fully incorporated. The cases involved typically set a major precedent and are an interesting topic to study.
The United States Constitution was created to define the powers and limitations of the government. It replaced the Articles of the Confederation, and was ratified by all 13 states in 1787 (American Government, n.d.). The ratification of the Constitution was not without opposition, and the government was split into two groups: federalists, and anti-federalists. The federalist group believed that a national governing body, ruled by the elite class was necessary. Antifederalists, on the other hand, believed that state governments should have more say, and that the government should be run by ordinary people (American Government, n.d.).