Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.
For example, if the president had all the power over everyone they would be able to do whatever they want and make laws that maybe no one agrees with. Next, if the power is divided and shared between people, then there will be a strong central government. John Madison presented this idea. When there is a strong central government then it means that the government would have a strong middle, which can guard against tyranny because it keeps the government successful and strong.
Washington would see that individual communities and movements have created change for themselves, while working against others. It’s amazing what could be done if we stopped working against each other. While political parties aren’t going away, which would be to Washington’s dismay, he would suggest that the next president figure out a way to stop the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, from being convinced their beliefs are the “correct” beliefs. If we cannot get rid of political parties, the best we can do is unite them. The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other.
James Madison wrote The Federalist 51 in order to state how the future government would make liberty possible in society. Madison believed that each branch should be, for the most part, independent. Montesquieu previously thought of this idea of separation of power. He then goes on to explain that to ensure that each branch is independent, it would mean that the citizens would select the president, legislators, and the judges. However, framers found great difficulty in making the correct decision when it came to an election.
Checks and balances prevents any one branch from having too much power. [Doc C is an excerpt from Federalist Paper #51 written by James Madison in 1788. The Federalist Papers were papers written to convince people to ratify the Constitution.] According to Doc C, ”... the constant aim is to divide and arrange several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other…”
Several years after the United States came to be, the Constitutional Convention met to determine how the new nation should govern itself. The delegates saw that it was crucial to have a president and vice president, but the delegates did not want these offices to reflect how the colonies were treated under the British rule. The delegates believed that the president’s power should be limited, and that he should be chosen through the system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the electing of the president and vice president. Many citizens feel that the Electoral College goes against our nation’s principle of representative democracy, while others
Thomas Jefferson’s and Alexander Hamilton’s viewpoints during the 1790’s and the 1800’s were very different but sort of similar. Jefferson wanted the government to be run by the people of the U.S. while Hamilton wanted the wealthy class to run it, Jefferson wanted strong state government, Hamilton wanted strong federal government. But one thing that stood out to the people was Hamilton wanted a loose/lenient interpretation of the constitution as Jefferson wanted a strict one. During the 1700’s-1800’s, despite the fact Philadelphia was the nation’s temporary capital, U.S. Congress met difficulties and fears that tested the strength of the Constitution and the republic it built.
No, the president should not have the power to use executive orders without congress approval. If the president were to have new initiatives in which he would like to enact, I think they should have to go through congress. The government created the three branches in order to equalize government power. The three branches were made for a purpose: one branch creates laws, one branch executes laws, and another interprets laws. Our three branches of government should communicate and work together not against each
The president also checks the legislative branch by calling special sessions of Congress. If there needs to be an urgent meeting between the president and the legislative branch they can do it. The judicial branch gets checked by the executive branch when the president appoints Supreme Court and Federal Judges. The president can choose who gets to work in the Supreme court. The executive branch
The executive branch can check the laws congress wants to pass and can veto them if he disagrees. The Legislative branch can check the executive by accepting the already vetoed law and can impeach or fire the president out of office. The Justice Branch can make sure peoples rights and liberties are being followed and check if the laws follow the constitution's rules. In the text, it says “To further limit government power the framers provided for separation of powers the constitution separates the government into three branches Congress of the legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch headed by the president carries out laws.
The delegates wrote this Constitution with tyranny in mind; how could the Constitution guard against one person or group from gaining too much power? The Constitution protects against tyranny because the 55 delegates established: federalism, separation of powers, checks & balances, and equal representation. Federalism helps guard against tyranny by making sure not one government has too much power. In Document A, it is clearly stated that James Madison, a main contributor to the Constitution, wanted “[a] compound republic of America” to provide a “double security” for our rights. As both central and state governments in the compound republic have different functions, this helps keep our states in a union while letting the states stay independent.
Executive orders have to be obeyed unless they are overturned by capable authority. For instance, Supreme Court has right to overturn the orders by president himself if they somehow despise it. On the contrast, Law has to be validating through entire legislative
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.
Lopez won the U.S. V. Lopez case making it important because in terms of congressional power since it would go against the rights given in article 1 section 8 number 10 that says, “To define and punish…offences against the Law of Nations. Aside from that it would have an effect on interstate commerce, thing that congress regulates as mentioned in article 1 section 8 number 3. Since Lopez won, the laws for the state had to change causing the state to have its own rules and punishments from the ones for the whole U.S. The Lopez case is an implied power due to article 1 and has many cons. The case of Lopez is considered implied power because his case went against the power of congress. In article 1, congress has the power to define and punish
The Judicial Branch incorporates the Supreme Court, the most noteworthy court in the United States, as well as other government courts. The judges of the Supreme Court are selected by the president and must be endorsed by Senate. Federal cases, such as Marbury vs. Madison, made the Supreme Court "a separate branch of government on par with Congress and the" executive branch (McBride, 2007, P.1). The motivation behind this case was to affirm the power of the Supreme Court to survey law, to figure out if or not that law is sacred, and to set up the check and offsets. We see these techniques existing today in our nation, in light of the fact that every branch can check the other to keep one branch from turning out to be too intense from the others, as legal over official can pronounce official activities illegal, official over legal can select Supreme Court judges, Legislative over Judicial can change the size of government court framework and the quantity of Supreme Court judges, and so on.