Explain how the Northwest Ordinance established a precedent for governing the United States. Develop an argument that a particular provision of the US Constitution would help in addressing a problem facing the United States in the 1780s (Articles of Confederation). Explain a provision of the US Constitution in terms of how it reflects Enlightenment thinking. Identify ratification concerns of the US Constitution. Identify and compare arguments of Federalists and Antifederalists.
Since sanction of the Constitution, which built up a union of states under a government arrangement of administration, two inquiries that have produced significant level headed discussion are: What is the way of the union? What forces, benefits, obligations, and obligations does the Constitution stipend to the national government and store to the states and the general population? Amid the 211-year history of the Constitution, these issues have been talked about on numerous occasions and have formed and been molded by the country's political, social, and financial history. Amid the pre-federalism period, the nation pursued a war for autonomy and built up a confederation type of government that made a class of sovereign states. Lacks in the Articles of Confederation incited its annulment and the approval of another Constitution making an elected arrangement of government contained of a national government and
Madison provides extensive arguments and remedies for the problems he is addressing. James Madison is attempting to ratify the Constitution by analyzing the way to deal with factions, comparing a republic to a democracy, and by comparing a small government to a large government. Madison is analyzing the way to deal with the growing faction problem. He begins his essay by defining factions for the reader. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of
There has been an effort to shift power from the federal government to the states. This country was founded with the attempt to separate the federal government and the state government, known as federalism. The goal of federalism is to divide the power of state and federal governments, protect the rights of the state, and prevent tyranny of the majority. Throughout the years, federalism turned into dual federalism where the state and federal government were completely independent of each other and only shared a dependency on the Constitution. The united states suppressing now to cooperative federalism, the national government has assumed even more power, overruling the states with Supreme Court decisions and actions, and executive Orders.
Madison case, the outcome could and would have been completely different. The decision he made of ruling in favor of James Madison, rather than William Marbury, was absolute brilliance. Even though he disagreed with Madison and believed Marbury deserved the appointment of a justice, he still had to rule against Marbury because this was the only way to establish the principle of judicial review, one of the most important parts of the system of checks and balances. The three branches of our government would not be equal without the court having such a power. Today, it is accepted that the supreme court will evaluate the federal laws and the acts of the executive and legislative branches.
The ideals and arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century have many similarities to the Democrats and Republicans of today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first two American political parties, debated over how the country would be shaped. First when developing the Articles of Confederation, then when developing the Constitution, the two parties argued how powerful the central government should be in comparison to the states. Federalists believed in a strong federal government. They believed that to have a country that functions well, there must be one authority that can arbitrate disagreements and make decisions to move the country forward.
Under the British unitary system, U.S was a string of colonies. When the revolution implemented, U.S became a confederation under the articles of confederation and when that system verified as abortive, it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution. This system is preferred for several reasons. The explanations may involve the size of the nation or the miscellany of the partisan divisions. As unitary system in the U.S and the diverse interests of different states made confederation impossible to run over.
“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument. According to “Time to Assert,” it explains, “The Fay case provides a legitimate opening for American citizens and companies to bring political and economic pressure to bear in the propagation of freedom and basic rights” (Time to Assert 180).
According to Nathan Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, “Federal courts agree that Title III’s roving wiretaps authority is constitutional and… provides strong support for constitutionality,” (Sales). This is a clear example that shows that even the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act are not just constitutional, but strongly supported by the Constitution. From this, many see that any attempted claims that the Patriot Act is wrong in the law are based merely on thought. But, there are more than one sections of the Patriot Act that are up for debate. Any arguments against the Patriot Act are destroyed quickly due to the fact that, “no single provision of the Patriot Act has ever been found unconstitutional,” (McNeil).
Analysis This case resulted in an explicit rejection of economic substantive due process. The Court overruled the holding in Adkins and changed the way the Court viewed state regulatory powers. The Court replaced substantive due process with a rational basis test that assumes the constitutionality of economic legislation and assigns responsibility to the law’s challengers to show there is not rational basis between the law and a legitimate government function. I disagree with the majority that the that this Washington state minimum wage requirement passes beyond the broad protective powers of the state. The decision in Adkins should have served as binding precedent and the Court should have held the law to be unconstitutional as well.