Federalism Vs Tyranny

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.

To paraphrase what James Madison said in Federalist Paper #47 , 1788 separation of powers is defined in the literal separation of the powers of the three branches of government consisting of the legislative, judicial and the executive branches. Separation of powers guards against tyranny because it does not allow a person or persons to he in more than one branch at the same time for example if someone is elected to be in the house of representatives than they cannot he elected for president at the same time so it stops someone for accumulation the powers or abilities of more than one government branch which guards against tyranny and keeps one from becoming a

For example, President James Madison wanted a constitution that will frame a strong central government with most of the power, but was afraid to create to create a tyranny at the same time. So Madison decided to divide the federal government in branches. The framers of the constitution avoided tyranny by using federalism, separating federal power/checks and balances, and small/large state compromise. One way how tyranny was avoided was by using federalism. On 1788, President James Madison wrote on the Federalist Papers talking about splitting the power between the federal government and the people of the states.

In document C there are the 3 branches of government and arrows pointing from one to the other telling us how each branch checks one another. Some of these are, the president can veto different laws if he does not like them, but Congress can override this veto and pass the law anyways if they have a majority vote to override it. The Courts can declare acts of either branch as unconstitutional. Congress can also impeach members of any other branch and can remove them from office. All of this means that whatever one branch does, it must go through the other two so no corrupt laws can be passed.

The Constitution made it possible for Congress, which comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate to check the powers of the executive by impeachment thus making them responsible before the Senate, where they may be tried and punished by the judiciary. With checks and balances, the legislature, executive, and judiciary can limit the powers of the others. As such, no branch is more powerful thus making sure that the power is balanced between them All legislative power is given to the Congress. The Congress also has the power to confirm and impeach both executive officials and judges in addition to overriding a Presidential veto. The Congress has the power to influence the composition of the judiciary as well as regulate the size of the courts.

Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules where the power to govern is shared between national and state governments. The delegates agreed to form this set because it would divide the power of the government as a whole in order for neither of the

But it also makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces.” (Glass). Because of this regulation of power the president is unable to make any rash decisions on his own without the approval of Congress which provides grand safety to the people. If the executive branch were to come to decisions without being monitored by the legislative and judicial branch the U.S. government would function as a dictatorship where no one has a say in

Federalism is restricted that governments decide to take care of the issue of administering substantial populaces and different societies. Federalism lives up to expectations by separating its power and responsibility, instead of a unitary government, in which the focal government controls everything. The Anti-Federalists contradicted the US 's ratification Constitution; however they never composed effectively over each of the thirteen states, thus needed to battle the ratification at each state tradition. Their awesome achievement was in driving the first Congress under the new Constitution to set up a bill of rights to guarantee the freedoms the Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution disregarded. I support the Federalism in light of the fact

Which means there would be a legislative branch, executive branch, and judiciary branch within the federal government. Document B claims “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one or few...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny… Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” Having separate and distinct branches within the government limits the power accumulated so that it doesn’t become overpowered. Each branch is made up of different powers and duties.

Like Document A, Document B was written by James Madison. He writes of how government is split, and how one can avoid tyranny in government. In Federalist Paper #47 it reads, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny… .(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” The three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, is said to eliminate any form of tyranny.

They wanted a new form of government that gave power to the people, states, and the federal government. But most importantly, they wanted a government that would prevent tyranny. After 3½ months, they came up with the Constitution. It was meant to establish a Federalist government, spread out power between 3 different branches of government, put in place a system of checks and balances, and give states equal and proportionate

The Colonists were trying to avoid tyranny. Tyranny is when a person is given all the power to control a country of a government like a dictator. The Constitution could guard against tyranny by dividing powers between branches of government evenly, using Checks and Balances, and having an Equal Representation from all the states for the Legislative Branch. The first way that the Constitution guards against tyranny is by dividing the branches of government. The government is separated into separate branches so that they can

After what happened between them and king george? Will this new era of government turned tyrannical? Well Tyranny is most often defined as harsh absolute power in the hands of one individual… according to james madison tyranny was a different he said that “ the accumulation of all power… in the same hands, whether of one few, or many is the very definition of tyranny.” what madison 's quote is really saying is that there

All branches check up on each other as executive checks on the other two, legislative checks on the other two, and judicial checks on the other two (Document B). For example, judicial checks up on the legislative branch by declaring laws unconstitutional (Document B). All branches make sure they didn’t overpower each other and relied on the other branches. In Document C, the power is separated through three branches that all have different jobs to keep the nation running as there is a congress (ex: approve treaties), a president (ex: conducts foreign policy), and a supreme court (ex: interprets the Constitution and other laws). They all separate powers so one does not have all the power or so much.

In the first paragraph of the Federalist Paper 10, Madison explains what he is trying to do with the constitution. His main concerns were to establish a government that was capable of controlling violence and damage caused by factions. He believes that as long as men have different opinions, different amounts of property and wealth, then there will always be factions. When Madison says faction, he means a group of people that have some strong common passion or interest.