The Constitution protected the people from tyranny by federalism, checks and balances, and equal power between the Senate and House of Representatives. One way the Constitution guarded against tyranny is federalism. As stated in Federalist Paper #51, by James Madison, he states that “ In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments… the different governments will each control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” Federalism prevented tyranny because neither the central government or the states had too much power. This is important because the power would be split between the two. For example, things that would happen in the state would be reserved for the state such as holding elections, establishing schools, and passing marriage and divorce laws.
Court Cases Response Paper The main idea of the first essay, dealing with the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, is that the U.S. Constitution must be read with a loose interpretation because if the Constitution contained “an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind” (66). The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the reoccurring issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the state of Maryland attempted to place a tax on the Second Bank of the United States and it was being determined if Congress could indeed create said bank. Maryland believed that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution it had the right to tax the bank. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause which made it constitutional to create the Second Bank of the United States.
The founders of this country wanted to be sure that this tyranny was not present in the laws and functions of this new nation. Even though there is no “federalism” named in the US Constitution; federalism was the government system that created this nation. It was the creation of a federal government overseeing politically independent states that has made the government of the United States so unique. Federalism is “the division of powers and responsibilities between the national and state governments” (Fallon Jr, p. 961) The Constitution of the United States includes many provisions with the powers and responsibilities of the federal and the state governments. These provisions underlaying the division of responsibilities between the national and state government.
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, without the need for implementing legislation, and requires a declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. It was a unanimous decision. The Court decided that holding such a requirement places the state of Maryland firmly on the side of those people who believe in God and are willing to state their belief.
The United States struggled under the Articles of Confederation, able to declare war and foreign policy, but unable to collect revenue to sustain its actions. The Constitution was designed to give more power to the national government primarily by empowering it with the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining central banking and financial policies. The national government was able to ask for monies from the states, but was not able to enforce collections of those monies needed to sustain their actions. The thirteen states essentially had recently revolted against Britain and its heavy handed tactics of collecting revenue and were almost immediately being asked to ratify and accept changes that would allow the new government to enforce funding as well. Since most of the framers of the Constitution were considered prominent and financially secure, this left the farmers and trades persons of lower class and wealth with the impression of returning back to a heavy handed government
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. (Anti-Federalist 1: Brutus). Even though the Constitution called for checks and balances, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, was convinced that the president would be the one making all the decisions, not unlike a king. (Bianco and Canon, 44). The national supremacy clause in the Constitution even stated that national law supersedes any state law when there is conflict.
It was determined that “the Congress of the United States is granted for certain implied powers by the Constitution that are implemented in order to ensure for the proper function of the Federal Government. "3In relevance to the states, it was determined that “States cannot impose on the powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government by any action. "3 In the case of McCulloch vs Maryland,this included the act of imposing a state bank tax on a national bank. Federalism This case tells us that the relationship between federal and state government is limited. Reflective Personally, I believe that in the grand scheme of things, this decision has limited the powers of the states opposed to the federal
The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
The new states needed to unite under one Constitution and form a sovereign central government. The Articles of Confederation was an imperative stride toward national solidarity. The new states required a central government. Congress had little power to force upon the states. They couldn't control taxes, and this prompted states taxing different states.
Thus, an indirect affect of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights was to hinder the ability of a member to sue for defamation in order to let non-members justify the statements made against the member of parliament. Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights would otherwise prevent the justification for statements that keep a check on the actions in a public forum. The aforementioned safeguard for non-members was waived momentarily in English history and turned out to be wholly unsatisfactory. In light of the above, the Nicholl Committee’s recommendation in 1999 stated that the provision be repealed and in return, each house shall have power to waive privileges in court proceedings, subject to the safeguards to maintain protection of the Bill of Rights for
While with the Articles of Confederation, it was the states that held majority of the power and jurisdiction of the United States; these powers were being granted to the new National Government. The individual state governments would though maintain some of the authoritarian power that was granted in the Articles of Confederation. This was a major concern of our founding fathers, they did not want a national government that would become so powerful, that its’ citizenry would become its subjects such as that they revolted against, England. So of this fear was born the separation of powers between the different branches of the national government. Both houses of the legislature would have to agree on a cause for a law to be enacted, and once approved it would be sent to the newly created executive branch for that elected official to sign into law.
The first of many was Marbury v. Madison. The Court formed the basis and established the exercise and practice of judicial review in the United States under the Constitution. The decision defined the boundary between the branches of the American form of government so it could provide the proper checks and balances. Many Anti-federalists disagreed stating that this decision would give the federal courts too much power and authority. They pointed that nothing in the Constitution established the power of judicial review.
Interpretation of the Constitution was another thing they fought upon. Hamilton interpreted it loosely while Jefferson was strict. This led to an argument about whether the creation of a national bank was constitutional; Hamilton stated it was while Jefferson claimed it wasn’t. Another issue that they clashed
The Eleventh Amendment The Eleventh Amendment was passed in the 1800s to stop states from being sued without their consent. The amendment was first created so a citizen from another state without their permission could not sue states. Now the eleventh amendment has been expanded to mean that a citizen from another state, a citizen of its own state, or the government/citizen of a foreign country cannot sue a state unless they give permission. This amendment changed America by giving more power to the states by taking it from the Supreme Court. This report will show this by telling the its creation, people’s feelings towards it, the debates/controversies of it, affect and court cases involving the amendment, and how the government has violated
The new states needed to unify under one constitution and they needed to establish a soverign central government. The Articles of Confederation was a significant step toward national unity. Most American historians said that the Articles of Confederation were insignificant because of the subsidiary position occupied by the central government. The new states needed a central government. Congress had little power to impose upon the states.