The electoral college is the way the president is picked, but should it remain that way? The electoral college has too many ways to go wrong and as time goes on we 'll just see more of them, and in many ways, it smacks the idea of democracy in the face. It has picked candidates contrary to popular opinion and gives states disproportionate amounts of power in picking the president, along with other problems. In a country to supposed to stand for freedom and each citizen having a voice, how is that possible when people in one state are given more power over choosing the president than someone in a bigger state. As was previously stated, it gives certain states more power and makes the votes of people in certain states worth more than a vote
Since the foundation of this country its people have identified more with their State and local government than the Federal Government. The Federal Government is look upon with suspicion and distrust. When the Constitution of the United States was written, the Founding Fathers were very careful to create a government that will not dominate and obliviate the local governments. The Revolutionary War was indeed a Civil War fought against a tyrannical centralized government. The founders of this country wanted to be sure that this tyranny was not present in the laws and functions of this new nation.
Thomas Jefferson- one of the great American founding fathers with exquisite taste in architecture and French wine, but also known to hold a controversial set of ideas- fought frequently and strongly against the Federalists ideas before he achieved Presidency. Jefferson and the other republican democrats who followed suit held the belief that the powers of the federal government should be left strictly to what is granted to them in the Constitution. Those powers not specifically addressed in the Constitution would then be delegated to the state governments. This is to ensure that the federal government did not have too much power as they believe a country runs best under a form of self-government. While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted.
Matthew Wong Ms.Yuan History-Duke 12 October 2017 How the Constitution affects tyranny That could happen if the Constitution was not set in place to guard against tyranny. Tyranny occurs when the government has an absolute ruler who rules harshly. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not very powerful and lacked many laws needed leading to a decision to forward a new constitution. The Constitution set up different laws to split the power between different powers so that they would never be ruled by a tyrant once more. As such, they split the power between the state and central government, federalism, so that one government does not have more power than the other.
Since the founding of the United States, there has been a debate over the power of the presidency, in regards to the constitution. In the article, “The Constitution and United States Foreign Policy: An Interpretation”, author Walter LaFeber, examines the theme of presidential power and the constitution in association with American foreign policy. From the beginning of the 1790s, there were debates as to the power that an American president had in the United States and in the world. These arguments continued between the 19th and 20th centuries. What was also important and central to this article, is not only the level of power a president does have in foreign affairs, but also the harmful consequences in using those powers without adhering to
president or other members of the government to have to rely on popular oratory. They did not believe the president should constantly be on trial by the court of public opinion for everything he said. They wanted to “establish institutions which could operate effectively without the immediate support of the transient opinion” (242). The modern presidency is entirely different than what the founding fathers intended it to be. The president who set the modern presidency into motion was Woodrow Wilson, who was elected 1912.
In the Rhetorical Presidency, Tulis argues the existence of two constitutional presidencies; an uppercase “Constitutional” presidency and a lowercase “constitutional” presidency. The “Constitutional” presidency refers to the presidency as created by the men who wrote the Constitution, in which the president draws his authority from the Constitution and does not lead public opinion. In contrast, the “constitutional” presidency refers to the president drawing his authority from the Constitution and his ability to lead public opinion. Thereby, the two constitutional presidencies ultimately conflict with each other. The presidency has drastically evolved over the decades to become the “constitutional” presidency, whereby an activist president
We may believe that Bush made a poor decision. However, what alternative did he have? What alternative does Obama have? If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue.
The presidential selection process was also a problem during the Constitutional Convention. The Virginia Plan suggested that the president should be selected by Congress because its members had the best knowledge and understanding of how the presidential selection process worked. In Federalist Paper No. 68, Hamilton asserted that the “men most capable of analyzing the qualities,” hence the members of Congress, to select the president since they had enough information on the presidential candidates to evaluate and make a reasoned judgment on which candidate would fit best in the president position. Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson, on the other hand, opposed this idea and suggested that the president should be selected by ordinary citizens.
The relationship between Congress and the President has, since the beginning, been a difficult one to balance. The founders of The United States put into place a system of checks and balances to ensure that there would always be a struggle between both branches of government. The tension between one branch writing laws and budgets and the other branch implementing the laws and spending the money has been a basic building blocks of American government. This paper attempts to explain the relationship between the legislative and executive branches in national government. Every president seeks to influence or determine policy.
The articles of confederation was written right after the revolutionary war was fought, however, the AOC failed, so they had to start all over with a new document called the constitution. 9 out of 13 colonies needed to ratify the new constitution for it to take effect. When it came to organize the government after the AOC, the people were divided on how the government should handle the fears of social, political, and economic fears which motivated the 2 parties, federalist and antifederalist. The federalists supported the new constitution, while the anti federalists were opposed. The political motivation for the federalists to support the ratification was they believed that a stronger government was necessary as the AOC had failed previously
When the United States of America began to fight the Revolutionary War in 1775, they would need a governing body to run the new country. However, seeing as they had just escaped from a tyrannical government under England, the Articles of Confederation gave the states a very large amount of power so that they would not have the same problem again. However, although this government gave many states what they wanted, it was not strong enough to run a country. So, when writing a new Constitution the founding fathers gave more power to the federal government than the states because of the former government. The Articles of Confederation had many things that it could not do, things that were needed in order to have a strong central government.