In addition, the new Constitution balances the power of every branches of the government(legislature, judicial, executive), but under the Articles of Confederation the legislature branch takes all the power or all- powerful; and that does not make the nation become unite. Now, we must ratify our new Constitution for the good of our nation to be unite. First, in order for us to be united is to ratify the new Constitution and of the new Constitution the federal will be strong to preserve our freedom, promote our trade and protect our property; that 's something that our people and our nation really needs. But in order for us to preserve our freedom we
The current imbalance due to the information the government has on us and the lack of information we receive from the government must be mended and this right will do just that. It's a right that must be built upon and expanded because of the recent growth in distribution and creation of information and data. Many countries have updated or interpreted their constitutions to support the right to access official information. So as this right is coming to attention internationally it has its place on the home front in the United States. Our freedoms must be protected and this right gives us the freedom that we deserve to be a part of this system and to have a say in our governance.
is it to be succsesful or a failure, are the people to prosper or suffer? once you exiamin federlism and anti-federlism it becomes clear only one would lead to a successful country and that is federlism. Federlism is best for the country becuse it secures the rights of the people,provides a stable government and produces a fair system to create laws. The first and foremost issue of government is to secure the rights of the people and federalism does this better than the opposition in a number of ways. By limiting the power of factions, providing
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
The system may seem confusing or unnecessary, but its importance is revealed by the care taken by the Founding Fathers in designing the Electoral College, which was described in more detail and at greater length than any other issue addressed in the Constitution (Guelzo and Hulme). Despite this, many still call for a shift to a popular vote system for the presidential election; however, such a change would be a mistake. The Electoral College should not be abolished and replaced by a popular vote because it is necessary to uphold the structure of the United States government, to protect the interests of the whole nation, and to preserve the integrity of the presidential election. Opponents of the Electoral College frequently argue that the Electoral College is outdated to the point of becoming obsolete, that it contradicts America’s identity as a democracy, and that it gives too much power to states with a small population. Critics of the Electoral College condemn it as a relic of a bygone era.
The people elect representatives to represent their opinions in the parliament. It serves for the common good of the people and have certain equality among the members. The parliament is always there to set laws according to the situations. Most importantly, republics recognize the rights of an individual in the law, rather than the majority. Both legislative houses are kept equal according the constitution.
The way he saw it, is that these systems were the best way of keeping government from becoming corrupt. He saw that the people who make the laws should be made up of a large group who can use their own experiences and wisdom to create laws that will better the government, so now there is Congress. He also saw that the there should be not many people with the power to enforce these laws so they feel personally responsible that the job will be done, so there is the president and the Cabinet. Finally, the power to interpret these laws should be given to jurists who act independently of the executive or legislative branches and cannot be fired by the President or Congress except through the process of impeachment, so there is the Supreme Court and all other courts. All of these ideas influenced James Madison, a federalist and future fourth president of the United states, who wrote the
However, there is a lot of opposition to the doctrine. Most governments are elected by the citizens they govern. Thus, there is the aspect of sovereignty of every government. “The doctrine of eminent domain stems from the sovereignty inherent in every government and it can thus be argued that it is not necessary to recognise the government’s power to acquire property for public use within the law” (Meltz, Merriam & Frank, 1998 ). However, the doctrine of eminent domain collides with individual property rights of citizens in a country, but there has always been the need to recognize it and
People Oriented America’s Constitution Professor Bernard Schwartz, a famous American jurist, once pointed out: ‘The real contribution of the United States to human progress lies not in its technical, economic or cultural achievements, but in the development of the idea that the law is a method to limit the right. ’ Thus we can easily find that constitutional society is the basis for the realization of the rule of law, and it is an important way to achieve political justice. It is also the constitutional system itself to consolidate the political foundation of American society, thus bringing long-term stability and prosperity to the American people. Therefore, we must dig the mystery of the success of constitutionalism in the United States,
The existing laws and regulations are not adequate to address the assault and exploitation of disabled women in Canada. Women with mental disabilities who have experienced sexual assault may not pursue legal action toward the perpetrator. This may be due to the widespread belief “that the woman will be unable to participate in or withstand a criminal investigation” (Benedet and Grant, 2014, p. 134). The inquiries and questionings involved in criminal investigations are often lengthy, intrusive matters for those involved, in addition to doubts of the victim 's claims. Next, women with mental disabilities or illnesses may be targeted due to the fact that they are less likely to accuse the assailant.
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.
Congress give bureaucracies the ability to carry out their policies how they choose. This leaves the doors wide open. Congress does this because if the agency did not, then congress would be swamped with trying to establish how to carry out the policy. Another reason congress has the agency do their own policy making is that they have experts on the topic, compared to congress. Agencies know needs to be done to uphold their ideas.