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.
The new government, the Constitution, is now able to enforces taxes, which allowed money to come in and the government was able to pay off their debt. One other weakness of the articles was that it gave all power to only one house of representative from each state, the constitution try to solve this matter that creating three separate branches of power, the Legislative branch, Executive branch, and the Judiciary branch, allowing the power to be more divided. Representation was another problem in under the Articles of Confederation because a big state like Massachusetts and a small state like New Jersey both have the same amount of representatives, the Constitution made a compromise by forming two house in Congress the Senate, where each state get equal representation, and the House of Representatives, where each state is represented by the population of the state. The Constitution also fixed the problem of passing a law; under the Articles of Confederation, laws can only be passed if 9 out of 13 representatives agrees on the law because of this not much laws were passed, now under the Constitution only 51 percent of the votes to pass the law. From this readers can infer that the Constitution fixed many of the defects in the Articles
In spite of this, not everyone was happy about the new Constitution. This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. 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.
The original system of dual federalism was set up so that the states and national government were separate but worked together. The states did most of the governing instead of the national government. “Citizens daily lives were chiefly affected by their states government not the national.” (Champagne and Harpham, 86) The national government role was to provide for national defence and foreign policy and assist in the development of commerce. The original statement of dual federalism can be found in The Collector v. Day (1807). A Supreme Court case that challenged the authority of the federal government to tax income of a state judge.
It also allows the president to appoint the Supreme Court and other federal judges. The executive branch can veto laws, making it much harder, for the legislative branch to pass laws. The president leads the executive branch and his cabinet, along with the Vice President. The cabinet is the presidents main advisors who help carry out laws and make policies in different areas such as defense, commerce, and
The Articles of Confederation was structured to give the majority power to the States while limiting the involvement of Government. The federal government was bestowed with the responsibility of mutual defense for the states and to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Government was supposed to be able to pass acts, however, each state was only permitted one representative regardless of that state’s population and votes needed to be unanimous for an act to pass. The power of the central government was vague and nearly unenforceable. Without a judicial system the federal government was unable to enforce penalties or consequences and without the ability to collect tax they could not finance the government meetings let alone the military to defend
Many people choose not to vote in an election due to the fact that their vote is not effective in influencing the outcome of an election. This system of voting within the electoral college also generally favours large states over small states, meaning that they also do not have much influence in an election turnout. This problem requires reform because not only does it underrepresent the minority opinion, there is also a possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular votes. In fact three U.S Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000, were elected with fewer popular votes, only winning the election because of the electoral votes they received. In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush’s 271 electoral college victory over Al Gore’s 266, prompted renewed calls for reforming the electoral college.
The United States started with The Articles of Confederation and while it was the first official unionization for the country, there were many weaknesses in it; we were unable to function efficiently as a whole. A federal system would be more beneficial over a confederation because it would give all provinces the opportunity to send a representative for their area to represent their needs and there would be a balance in power so that no area is being favored over the
The way the electoral college is not fair to the people if it come to a tie or nobody reaches the 270 votes needed because their vote does not matter anymore and it goes to the house of representatives and they will side with whatever party they are with, Winner takes all method makes it so third party does not have any chance to win at all even if a 50/49 vote all electoral votes will go to the 50%, Lastly it needs to be abolished because it is not fair to smaller states and prefers larger states with having a lot more electoral votes than other states. The electoral college is something that was working in the past because the states were not associated with any party and with the changes to America and her people the way we elect our leader needs to change
Many Southerners felt that state governments alone had the right to make important decisions, such as whether slavery should be legal. Advocates of states’ rights believed that the individual state governments had power over the federal government because the states had ratified the Constitution to create the federal government in the first place. Most Southern states eventually seceded from the Union because they felt that secession was the only way to protect their rights. But Abraham Lincoln and many Northerners held that the Union could not be dissolved. The Union victory solidified the federal government’s power over the states and ended the debate over states’