Question two As the chairman for the Republican National Convention and knowing that Buckley V Valeo decision will not be soon changed, I would argue against changing the current campaign system in the most spectacular way. I would get on air and frame as the case as the liberal media trying to suppress free speech. I would attack the media on its double standards and vendetta against businesses. The press demands to know the inner working of institutions, yet it hardly respects other people’s right to assemble nor does it promote candidates that reflect the views of people whom want to make America great. The first amendment guarantees the right to assemble even in secret.
The original political parties in America differed on their views for many things. For instance, a national bank, amount of strength for the government, and the interpretations of the Constitution. One of their biggest disagreements is the view of an alliance with the British vs. an alliance with the French. The Federalists wanted a British alliance over a French alliance. In my history book on page 291 it states, “They admired Britain because of its stability.” Britain hasn’t had as much problems with their government as France had.
In the case of america goverment must not choke out seed of a new country before it begins to plant its roots. Federlism not only provides stabilty but also provides the nesecary resose for america to grow by providing a central goverment with economic organization and legislative ability. Having a central government brings the states together into one country instead of the independent semi-countrys they were before to work for the best of the nation. With the strong supporting hand of central government states are less likely to succeed from the union and more likely to provide for and support the country to the best of the abilities of the state. The central government has three different branches each with limited power unique to the branch with the system of checks and balances no branch is able to breach past their bounds and leach power from another branch the power is disrtuped so that no branch has supreme athorty not only over the others but also over the country itself.
They both played huge roles in his life, and political career. Washington’s friendship would put him in a place of power, and Jefferson’s rivalry would help keep said power in check. When Washington placed him as the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, he gave Hamilton a podium to achieve his view of what America should be. The same could be said when he made Thomas Jefferson the first Secretary of the State. It’s safe to say that Washington leaned on Hamilton more for ideas.
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.
While on the other hand William Hogeland author of “The Whiskey Rebellion”, analyzed the success Hamilton and the federalist had on the economy, as well as how Whiskey changed America. President Washington had finally appointed Hamilton as head of the Secretary of Treasury in 1789, to fix the damages the United States had. There were three debts to be repaid from the war; foreign, federal, and state. The program Hamilton installed for the society effected the individuals who mainly lived on the west side of the country instead of the east. Hogeland, as well expands on the long process Hamilton went through to succeed with the policy as well as the obstacles he and the federalist had to
Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. He strongly believed in a weak central government where the power was given to the states in order to preserve their rights and prevent a dictatorship. The best government in his opinion was the one that had the least input on people's decisions. Jefferson also had no intentions of expanding eastward. Rather, he believed that strengthening and expanding their borders at home should be the highest priority.
Nevertheless, he stuck to this rule and took the financial crisis in stride, minimizing it is as much as realistically possible while still preserving the rights of American citizens. He believed that the public should not be government dependent, and as a result, encouraged the country as a whole to do their part in reducing the national debt. One should not believe he did not do his part though, as he cut federal spending by 43% in an effort to protect Americans’ property rights. A true president for the people, Coolidge’s decisions were always in best interest of the common welfare, something that should always come first in America’s
My ideal government would one of the people for the people. To me, if the public could not take part in the decisions that affect their everyday life, and would just have life-altering decisions made for them, would not make sense. I would want to know that I had a say in what goes in my community and country. The freedom to know what is going on in your country, and to give your opinion is all your own only if it doesn’t cause harm. Just like in banks where you can take out the amount of money you want as long as the loss of money will not hurt your budget in the long run.
Some may think that just a piece of paper would have no impact on them, but they would be in a world of shame if there wasn’t one. When Federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big vs. small states are all taken into consideration, tyranny is prevented and our country will succeed.
Once the British and Colonist ideals were not the same(Document 2) this gave better reason and a model to not follow when pursuing independence. Yet without the British making the laws it did, the America today would not ensure unalienable rights and prohibit the making of any laws like Britain made, which ultimately lead to a better