They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission. (Anti-Federalist 1: Brutus). Even though the Constitution called for checks and balances, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, was convinced that the president would be the one making all the decisions, not unlike a king. (Bianco and Canon, 44). The national supremacy clause in the Constitution even stated that national law supersedes any state law when there is conflict.
During this period, the Anti-Federalists felt as though the aristocrats had no particular opinion about our future government, which alarmed the group. Because they saw aristocrats as overpowering the opinions of those who are not as noble. The writer states that he would rather be a free citizen of the Republic of Massachusetts than succumb to a great American Empire. The Federalist goes on to say that unless there is some security of the people 's liberties, the new Constitution will not be successful. The writer had full faith in the citizens of the United States to decide what was best for the future of the
Preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, but it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on past issues (Sensenbrenner, 2016). Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar.
Strict constructionism is generally recommended more by conservatives rather than loose constructionism. Conservatives tend to choose to go by precisely with what the writers wrote, while liberals believe in loose constructionism. Loose constructionism allows for the Constitution being a basis
The court ruling disapproved with states banning interracial marriage because it was unconstitutional. In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
Loose Versus Strict Interpretation The constitution today is used in a loose interpretation. Although it is questioned by many Democratic republicans who believe that the constitution should be interpreted in a stricter manner. While the Federalists debate the government should have a loose construction. Both parties fear that the united states will be in danger without their views. Who came up with these vastly different views of government, you might ask.
Changing it every time something in the world comes about will get to a point where it’s too much for the government. “A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma).
I have listed several things that are important to me including freedom of speech, embracing diversity, appreciating America’s natural beauty, and the fundamentals of equal opportunity. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather just some of the ideals most important to me as I think about what it means to be an American. It’s likely a list that may change over time, but yet one that can tie back to the fundamental ideals our founding fathers seemed to cherish themselves. Finally, I would be remiss to not acknowledge my sincere appreciation for all those brave men and women who have fought to make these freedoms possible. By virtue of their personal sacrifice they might possibly best define what it truly means to be an American and that we are the land of the free because of the
My vision of America is represented by a government that will never stop providing for its people. Protecting the natural rights of citizens and promoting national defense, I hope that America will not only support freedom in the motherland but also support defenseless nations
This function of judicial review is not meant for specific cases but more importantly to guide the other two branches and we could say that thanks to this, the Supreme Court can actually modify laws to its preferences and interests. This is one of the main features that lead people to believe it is the most powerful branch of American government and even though it may sound extreme, we could very well say that the way the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional is unconstitutional