The founding father’s idea when they created the Constitution was to prevent a centralized government. As expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, they believe that the power surrendered by people would be divided between the federal and state governments, creating balance of power that would enable both governments to control each other. Over time, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has shifted in favor of the federal government and this has taken place with the help of the Constitution and by enactments of Congress. The role that Chief Justice John Marshall played in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century is important to mention because he shaped the nation.
The constitution, the american law. The constitution was made in Philadelphia in 1787 with the intent to replace the Articles of Confederation as the papers of american law. Because of the unfairness and the tyranny that the americans suffered at the hands of the british kings and rulers they set up the constitution in a way that certain writings would act as a guard against tyranny, an example of these guards are federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, bicameral. Tyranny is defined by James Madison as “ The accumulation of all powers … in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many (is) the very definition of tyranny.”
The background of “Unruly Americans: and the origins of the Constitution” by Woody Holton is how the American society was taught to believe that the US Constitution was created to encourage democracy and protect civil rights. However, Holton offers a different view. He even goes to the extent of stating that, in 1776 the 13 colonies of North America left the Empire of Britain and 55 of the world’s most notable men known as the Founding Fathers work on the Constitution in Philadelphia as it became the most powerful and wealthiest state in 1787. The Framers’ gathered 1787 and they only could help citizens partially, yet their motives were never revealed. The purpose of the Constitution was to help America more attractive to investors. The focus
James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions. The representatives would be the voices of their constituents, leaving them with the responsibility of making decisions for the public good.
James Madison, founding father and fourth president of United States wrote the federalists paper number 10 in favor of the constitution. He believes that constitution is the only way to keep balance and control any problem this country faces. He uses faction as an example and talks about how it can cause problems but most importantly how to deal with the problems.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.”
Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place. As it was definitely difficult to do so, the Constitution was ratified in
The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states.
Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society. In the very beginning or the “birth,” of our United States government we did not have a constitution, in fact the democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The American government went through several trial and errors to see what worked and what did not before creating and establishing the U.S. Constitution.
Established on September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed rights for its citizens. The Constitution also represents the value and principles of democracy and republicanism that the United States of American stands by. This means that the Constitution regards to the American citizen as something that is held to deserve meaning the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. It also means its citizens come first in order of importance. The Constitution represents the value and principles of democracy and republicanism by stressing liberty and inalienable rights as central values, making the people as a whole sovereign, rejecting inherited political power, expecting citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption. It also represents the control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened. Marshall, being a strong federalist, ruled that state given monopolies were unconstitutional and believed that competition was healthy for business.
In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan). Brennan believed that all important reading such as the Constitution require the reader to go much more in depth rather than to just scratch the surface of the text. He believed in viewing the Constitution with human dignity in mind. Human dignity is in a sense what the Constitution is composed of. The Founding Fathers did not wish for anything other than the respect of human dignity in this country.
At the beginning of U.S. history there were many debates on how the country should be run. People mainly argued about the balance of power between the individual person and the Federal Government. Some people and documents that addressed this issue are the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, The U.S. Constitution: Preamble and Bill of Rights, and “Jefferson: The Best of Enemies” by Ron Chernow.
In America 's legal system there are five sources of law. Those include constitutions, pieces of legislation, executive orders, rules and regulations made by administrative bodies, and judicial decisions. They each have a very distinguish relationship with each other. Each source go together hand in hand to make up constitution and it 's amendments when it comes to the regulations of the law. Also when discussing which is better for today 's usage, common law or code law the choice is obvious. In today 's age I think common law works better because it is more progressive and fits with America 's ideal not super strict government. Where is code law is more old fashioned and has much more old ideas to