Perhaps, he prepared a proposal with twenty-three different points in were the Constitution could be reform. It’s hard to understand why he name this book like this. In my opinion, it does not have much sense to transform something that is perfect and convert it in something more perfect. However this book is based on the author political opinion on respect to the United States Constitution, more like from the democrat party than conservative. In fact, the Constitution as how it’s right now it does not meet the need of the country right now, due to many issues that the nation is facing and because of the constitution said can’t do much.
You were either a Federal or a Anti-Federal (against or with the Constitution). Both sides had their own reasons to believe to accept or decline the offer. Anti-Federalist believed that some poor would never get into government, there was no liberty in press, the government had too much power, and most of the rights they fought for in the war isn’t present in the constitution (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). The Federals said that the Constitution was a new protecting, efficient federal government for the many current problems, the complaints of the farmers, the
The proper and necessary clause in the Constitution is too general, and is dangerous due to the fact that it doesn't list all the powers of government in order to put clear limits on them. The executive branch is given too much power from the Constitution, and there is a probability of it becoming a monarchy soon. The Federalists could argue that a strong national government is needed to deal with problems, like trade and defense, but that does not counter the fact that they carry an army during peacetime, and it could be used to suppress the people. They might also say that a strong executive branch is necessary to to fulfill its responsibilities, this can be countered by the fact that one branch should not be stronger than the others, that was the whole point of the three branches. In conclusion, the Constitution has many errors that need mending.
Caused by the flaw in the federal law that electors do not have to vote for whom they have pledged for. However, a punishment is given if they choose to go down that route "($1000 fine)". The issue with this is, when voting, rather than directly voting for the campaigner a voter is actually voting for his/her elector. And in return, the elector will vote for that campaigner. Rendering citizen votes useless in elections if the citizens don 't even get to choose who they wish to be president.
There was the problem that the articles wouldn’t be able to raise taxes. Which caused the inability to get the country out of debt which had came from the revolutionary war. Also the inconvenience of not being able to support any of the government projects, war, or sciences that the government chooses to fund. Congress couldn’t regulate trade, this could cause many issues among the colonies. Such as trading with countries in which other colonies do not like or have issues with could cause trade to stop between those two colonies or multiple colonies.
I believe that there should be more restrictions on Campaign/Election Policy. Lobbyist should be restrained from “buying” political offices. Every interest group has the right (and should!) be encouraged to talk to Congressmen and Senators about their concerns. However, I do not think that lobbyist should provide favors to politicians, so that the politicians will vote on a bill in the lobbyist’s favor even though lobbyists go after those politicians that have no position on an issue.
Also, I think that we should get rid of the popular vote. There are so many reasons why we need an Electoral College. The Electoral College keeps the coastal elites from basically choosing whoever they want for president. Many people often get mistaken and believe that the Founders wanted a popular vote and power to the people, however, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about that. If there wasn’t an Electoral College then the smaller states would be at a complete disadvantage.
Beginning with modern technology, people are able to access information to make educated decisions, therefore the Electoral College isn’t seemed to be essential. Also, “Electoral College are now selected by the political parties and they are expected to vote along party lines regardless of their own opinions about the candidates”(procon.org). Meaning that their decisions are based on their party system alone, and the electorate personal opinion does not count. In addition to this, some may agree that the general people's opinion is being disregarded. This was seen in the most recent election in 2016.
Moreover, births attended by skilled staff are only 38.3% in areas with an urban population share below 20% and 78.0% in areas with that share between 50% and 90%. Urban parents are twice as likely as rural parents to have a child attended by skilled staff. The number of community health workers per 1,000 inhabitants is higher in areas with a less than 20% urban population share than in areas with that share between 50% and
We’ve been trying to get rid of the Electoral College for the past couple years now, but we as the people have failed to act and therefore they will put it to the side and say “Don't worry, we will get to it”. No longer should we stand for this we have to insure that votes are actually making a difference in our country. What is the point not voting if we are just ignored and tossed aside? The Electoral College is the sole reason why some people just do not care about voting, because they feel like they don't make a difference in the matter, and that is correct in some degree because the Electoral College makes it that