Constitution Summary: How The Constitution Affects Tyranny

The Constitution protected the people from tyranny by federalism, checks and balances, and equal power between the Senate and House of Representatives. One way the Constitution guarded against tyranny is federalism. As stated in Federalist Paper #51, by James Madison, he states that “ In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments… the different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

This system allows all three branches of government to try to improve or just outright veto the actions of another branch, keeping the other branches from being too powerful. One example is that then president, who is in charge of the Executive branch, can veto laws passed by Congress. Another example would be that Congress can remove the president from office in certain circumstances. The French philosopher Montesquieu originally thought of these ideas of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. The way he saw it, is that these systems were the best way of keeping government from becoming corrupt.

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.

He explains that only when the legislature does not act in the best interest of its citizens or if they “endeavour to invade the property of the subject,” do the citizens have grounds for rebellion (). Following from the previous paragraph, when governments attempt to address inequality without the expressed consent of the governed, they may be dissolved. Focusing so singularly on the protection of property and therefore the protection of inequality will directly contrast with

(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. But what they were most scared of was.

Describe two weakness of the Articles of Confederation and explain how each was addressed in the Constitution. Government could not tax the people. This was crucial because following the Revolutionary War of 1775, the American government was in great debt. The lack of funds to pay the soldiers influenced Shay’s rebellion. This was inspired to create enumerated powers of congress.

What I mean by that is if the executive branch didn’t like something that the judicial branch was doing they could off a change or a different solution. So to make a long story short these branches weren’t completely separate. Written in Federalist Paper #51 it states that “The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” (Doc C) I also think that when Madison said that “The different governments will each control each other, but at the same time they each will also control themselves.”

The United States struggled under the Articles of Confederation, able to declare war and foreign policy, but unable to collect revenue to sustain its actions. The Constitution was designed to give more power to the national government primarily by empowering it with the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining central banking and financial policies. The national government was able to ask for monies from the states, but was not able to enforce collections of those monies needed to sustain their actions. The thirteen states essentially had recently revolted against Britain and its heavy handed tactics of collecting revenue and were almost immediately being asked to ratify and accept changes that would allow the new government to enforce funding as well.

Because it goes against Emerson’s ideas of opposition to the mainstream ways, he would want less democracy because a democracy is a group that is indirectly controlled by the agreed majority. 5. Was Emerson a liberal or conservative -- and in what ways? a. Emerson, in my opinion, was mostly a conservative because the beliefs of this political view support the solving of problems by a single person. He emphasized this through the display of independent decision making.

On the other hand, in a footnote on the Book III chapter 15 he wrote that democratic governments can be more strong and viable when they join all together in confederations. He was one of the main democratic theorist that influence the French Revolution, but he never solved the problem of size or scale of

The Articles of Confederation did not adequately control and decrease the negative impacts of groups on the country, and in this manner another government was essential. The administration laid out in the Constitution was perfect since it was a republic, an agent government that would keep self-intrigued interests from holding an excessive amount of influence over the legislature. It was equally substantial, containing agents from each state and various vested parties, making it troublesome for one faction to overwhelm and stifle the others. Delegates would be chosen by a large group of individuals, assuring that just the most commendable would hold office. At last, laws were gone by the entire country, making it troublesome for issues in one state to invade and influence others.

The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption

This is evident in document A, where it shows you a Venn diagram of which powers are given to the states and which powers are given to the federal government. For one thing, this shows how “a double security arises to the rights of the people”, which means that when the power is distributed between the states and the federal government, neither is able to gain absolute power over the country. Federalism also comes in handy by specifying what the states get to control and what the national government gets to control, which is meant to prevent conflict between the two powers. For example, the task of declaring war is meant for the national government only. If that wasn’t specified, there would likely be a lot of cases where states declared war, and the national government had to clean up the mess.

When the writers came up with the rules for a new government they wanted democracy to be a part of it. A republic was wanted by the colonists after the King imposed taxes and limited the settlement for people in North America. The US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation let the people have a say on how they could govern themselves instead of a monarch. Both documents limited the power that the central government had on the states and its people.

Although the Articles of Confederation protected the power of states, it severely limited the power of the federal government. For example, the Articles of Confederation prevented the federal government from regulating imports and exports. This allowed states to disproportionately levy taxes on each other. To rectify this issue, the Constitution granted the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Also, the Articles of Confederation prevented the government from raising a standing army, which allowed for events of instability, such as Shay’s Rebellion to form.