He even claims that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual” (Wills 268). This supports his claim to promote natural rights in the sense that it is what the people are born with and will have what should be given under any circumstances. While Jefferson seems to be the leader in all of this, he is heavily influenced by the ideas and believes that already exist from John Locke, who is also an advocate for the belief in natural rights. He believes that society benefits most when it is in control of their freedom.
“[Britain’s] Magna Carta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation….this principle is a fundamental one… [and] such declarations should make a part of [the United States’ frame] of government” (Document B). This document limited the King's power. By the Barons stopping the KIng from doing anything they wanted they limited the KIng's government. The framers limited the government by making Amendments In the Bill of Rights. The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people.
Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation. Due to the state of nature being violent, it is optimal for individuals to relinquish their rights to an absolute sovereign. If one agrees with Hobbes’ theory about life in a state of nature being “nasty, brutish, and short” (82), then
Madison case, the outcome could and would have been completely different. The decision he made of ruling in favor of James Madison, rather than William Marbury, was absolute brilliance. Even though he disagreed with Madison and believed Marbury deserved the appointment of a justice, he still had to rule against Marbury because this was the only way to establish the principle of judicial review, one of the most important parts of the system of checks and balances. The three branches of our government would not be equal without the court having such a power. Today, it is accepted that the supreme court will evaluate the federal laws and the acts of the executive and legislative branches.
Nor is it accurate to imagine that a burdensome revision procedure would help in keeping up with the ever changing transformations that have taken place in our country over the years. It was to be anticipated that the Constitution would adjust. It is also an appropriate thing, since a set in its way Constitution would not correspond to our society. Either it would be unheeded or, it would be an obstruction, a historical object that holding us back and thwarting our civilization from functioning in the method it should. The Constitution is meant to be a unshakable footing, the example of our foremost essential main beliefs, that's the reason for of having a constitution.
Of the many forms of interpretative constitutional theory that exist, Justice Scalia sees himself as a textualist. He states: “Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism… [a] text should be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that if fairly means” (23). Drawing from a quote from Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, Scalia hints at the notion that if the constitution were to explicitly say all of the powers it allowed and the means by “which they may be carried into execution” then it would be tediously long and incomprehensible to the human mind; therefore one should not expect nit-picking detail and afford to the constitution, with regards to its use of words and phrases, an expansive interpretation so long as the language can bear it. In his distinction between strict constructionism and reasonable constructionism (textualism) Scalia references the first amendment’s forbidding of the abridgement of “the freedom of speech”. He
Rather, the United States’ judicial system should remain impartial and consistent while interpreting the laws as they are written. Also, the Constitution is not an optional document to reference, rather, it is our nation’s original rule book by which the judicial system should base its decisions and interpretations on. As one of the most influential and transformative justices of his time, Justice Scalia’s vision for the Constitution included that of which it is to nail things down so they would last. Although our nation is constantly changing, the Constitution must remain the foundation of our existence as a sovereign nation, and the document itself must not be loosely interpreted and disregarded by flawed and power-hungry justices. To maintain the integrity of our judicial system and maintain a prosperous future for America, it is important we follow Justice Scalia’s vision and leave the Constitution as it was when it was first adopted, while also not repeatedly ignoring and broadly misinterpreting its
Try to imagine life without the Constitution. Without the Constitution we eventually would end up with some form of tyranny. Within the Constitution there are sections to ensure all powers were equally distributed and that no one group or branch has too much power over the other. That section of the Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is when a person or a group of people have absolute power.
Securing these rights is the most fundamental responsibility of his government. Also, some people may ask that how the government balances the whim of the state and the whim of the individual. In Jefferson’s perspective, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” (119), what Jefferson really means is that when people feel their safety and happiness are being infringed upon, they have rights to institute a new government. But Jefferson also emphasizes that only when people suffer from “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (119), is it a good way to change the government. People only hurt themselves when they intend to change the government because of some small mistakes.
A constitution is a set of fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organisation or nation, establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document general nature and embodying the aspirations of values of its writers and subjects. (Business Dictionary, 2015). A constitution is the ultimate authority; any action, which contravenes the rules of the constitution, will be both unconstitutional and unlawful. It will also help identify the rights and freedoms of citizens through a bill of rights, which operates both to protect citizens and to restrict the power of the state.