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.
This where the governor has too much power so they try to slow the power down by limiting the time that he is in office. If you leave too much power in one person's hands it could go bad very fast by some personal rights being taken away. They could also abuse power by completely changing major things to make things the way they like them. This is why the control of the abuse of power is a democratic feature of Colonial America. Economic Freedom is a major undemocratic feature of Colonial America.
The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts and took power from the states, depriving citizens of liberties. The Federalist believed that "The smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). The Anti-Federalist wanted a national representation large enough to secure a substantial representation of the middle class, but not a very large one. They did not want a large national representation because they believed it may derive liberties from local state representatives.
The legislative, executive, and judicial branches each have ways to check the power of another branch. Congress has the power to approve and confirm Presidential nominations, override a President’s veto, impeach the President and remove him or her from office, and impeach judges from office. The President can nominate judges and veto Congressional legislation. The Court has the rights to declare presidential acts and laws unconstitutional. “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other…
Not only is that written, but so is John Locke’s rule of law, or did we forget. The rule of law was written so that the power and discretion of government and its officials are restrained by a supreme set of neutral rules that prevent arbitrary and unfair action by the government (Magstadt, p.79, 2105). Unless there is a loophole within our governmental system, how can 5 Supreme Court justices make a decision to renounce section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? It is obvious that it is needed. We need it to keep certain states from discriminating against minorities.
As a democrat, Paine believed in strong state governments and Washington opposed that. Washington would do anything to make sure that a strong government-led country would survive. In spite of Washington’s efforts, Paine wrote numerous articles in which he tried to reinforce what the Declaration of Independence was actually about. He believed in a world that would focus on democratic rights other than a strong central government. Furthermore, Paine considered it to be a privilege of the country to decide its legislature, to gain individual rights, and to obtain their freedom.
The first method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Federalism. Federalism is the division of power between state and national government. In Document A it interprets that the governments will each have a portion of power and not be able to have all the power. This evidence helps explain why the Constitution guards against tyranny because Federalism will allow both governments to have limited powers. Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers.
The final way the Cconstitution protected against tyranny was through the system of checks and balances. They system of checks and balances was made so that one branch wouldn’t become more powerful than another as most of the branches actions could be checked by another branch. For example the legislative branch can impeach a president from office and the congress approves presidential nominations and can override a presidential veto. The judicial branch can declare presidential acts unconstitutional and the president nominates the judges from the judicial branch. This system provided an equal balance amongst the three branches and every detail was necessary for equality here, as James madison explained in one of his federalist papers.
Although congress plays a big role on national policy issues, the institution does not always lead. The reason for this is due to Congress’s structure. Congress is made up of the House, and the Senate. Both houses have their own authority and constituency base. It is important to note that Congress is structured in such a way that slows down the legislation process.
This enforces EU law on affiliated nations. It has the authority to overpower jurisdictional supreme courts in areas covered by EU. It acts as the adjudicator between and within member states. Executive dominance can be taken as a reason for the exhausting of parliamentary sovereignty. The minister’s faithfulness and the persuasive feeling to legitimize the actions and laws of the government allowing them to be overpowered by the government, result in the parliamentary sovereignty being worn-out.
The reason I mentioned that is bipartisanship means both parties have to come together but some time with parties they think bipartisan ship means one republican jumps on a mostly democrat bill or vice versa. That’s not bipartisanship at all what it is, is congressmen giving each other favors in order to pass a bill. There isn’t much give and take which means it’s not bipartisan. Also bipartisanship stops gridlock but if there are positions that one side feels that needs to be addressed it and it doesn’t then it pays off to be partisan.
The Electoral College (another words for as it stands) today, has become (another word for detrimental) to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As an American citizen, it is our (another word for duty) to (another word for fight) for our right to fair representation. In a fair democracy, everyone’s vote should be counted equally but he method that the United States uses to elect its president using the Electoral College violates the
Interpretation of the Constitution’s Vesting Clause has caused the executive's office to greatly expand or contract throughout the course of American history. Every president perceives the Constitution differently, causing contested changes to the office in the pursuit of their overarching goal of national security . As early as Washington's first term, presidential interpretation affected the office’s growth and set the precedent for years to come. He immediately expanded the power of the veto by the denial of a House apportionment bill. The veto was rationalized on the grounds of constitutionality, but even this was an expansion of presidential power.
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.