The dissenting opinion included: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Roberts took a strict-constructionist approach and stated that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because same-sex marriage was not explicitly stated in the constitution. He stated that although same-sex marriage may be a good policy it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to make that decision. He held that the right to same-sex marriage should be given to the states rather than the national government. The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making.
Our country was founded on the constitution and the way the government is stepping over the line with the Patriot Act is unreasonable. People need to speak out and defend our rights so that we don’t become a martial law country. Martial law country is basically where the constitution is suspended, and you have no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly and you could be arrested at any time for any reason whatsoever. The military would be completely in control (Synder, 2015). This is a very scary thought that in our country there would be no rights.
Although the Articles of Confederation protected the power of states, it severely limited the power of the federal government. For example, the Articles of Confederation prevented the federal government from regulating imports and exports. This allowed states to disproportionately levy taxes on each other. To rectify this issue, the Constitution granted the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Also, the Articles of Confederation prevented the government from raising a standing army, which allowed for events of instability, such as Shay’s Rebellion to form.
Lincoln believed that if the nation continued on its destructive path by ignoring the rule of law, the nation in return would destroy itself. Lincoln went on to say in his address: “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others”. Abraham Lincoln may not have addressed the Declaration of Independence in his Lyceum Address but in referring to the laws and to the U.S. Constitution, he explains that without following these laws the Declaration of Independence was for nothing and means
On the contrary, Jefferson argued that the Constitution reserved all other powers to states and that Hamilton could not have a national bank because the federal government was not empowered to do so. But, he was wrong. Congress is permitted to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carry out other powers that is specifically granted. The national bank was something to look forward to because it would keep the nation’s money organized and under
If nation chooses not to be a part of either group, they have no chance in being defended against the violator because they are not a part of the council and the council as whole makes all the decisions. To conclude, the only way the League of Nations would prove to be successful if everyone were to cooperate and have the same idea of peace in mind. While the League of Nations prevents some of the problems that Roosevelt brought to congress in his speech, it does not do so in an effective way. If America were to be a member in this conference, the country would have to participate in every battle or fight, even if it did not pertain to us. The same would go for other nations.
The two of the most important parts of the government are the State Government and the Federal/National Government. These two governments are very different in many ways but, they each have their own responsibilities and there own set limitations. These strict limitations are put into place to keep the States from overpowering the Federal Government and there are limitations in place to keep the Federal Government from taking the States rights away. One of these limitations being the tenth amendment which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to people." This in simpler terms means that all the powers the Federal Government doesn 't have belongs to the State or to the people.
Thus, the people have no say in their interest, which can only be achieved in a democracy. Therefore, the result of selecting the advice by the monarch does not fulfill what the society needs, and he could unfairly represent the rights of the people. For instance, Trump and his administration have a fixed position on immigrants, and Muslims enterings to the United States and the laws that he comes up with that hurts the states and neglects the public opinion on such topic. Nevertheless, Hobbes points out that the sovereign has his people that he appoints and that he believes that they will serve with full loyalty and commitment towards the society. Hobbes states “he can hear the opinion of men who are knowledgeable about the matter in question--men of any rank or status-- and as long in advance of the action and with as much secrecy as he like” (Hobbes 87).
Constitution adopted in l789. The United States would have a vastly different political system if the courts did not possess the power of judicial review. Without judicial oversight of government actions, the legislative branch would be legally supreme, and the fundamental protections included in the constitution, such as freedom of speech would be ineffective. The inclusion of fundamental rights in the Constitution, combined with the power of judicial review, serves to protect the minority from laws created by a slim majority because a supermajority (two-third of each house of congress plus ratification by three-fourth of the States) is required to modify the
This act is just to give immigrants, like the Syrians, a little boost to get them started. Even with all of these protections for refugees, governors like Texas’ Greg Abbott have stated that any program that allows Syrian refugees into their states are not welcomed. Governors from Alabama to Arkansas to Florida to Louisiana have all released similar statements. Basically, what governors like Abbott are saying is that they will not allow Syrians into their states. Constitutionally, states have that right but in the 1915 Supreme Court case Truax vs. Raich, the court concluded that states do not have the right to impose onerous conditions on immigrants, like the Syrians(4).
The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.
It 's never good for a new country to fight over its very foundation. In the USA’s case the foundation was the constitution, and the disagreement was over how to interpret the document. The amendments and code of conduct are listed in the constitution so this dispute was for the better of the country. The Federalists believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution. They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed.
This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval. The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification.
One of these rough patches was the Articles of Confederation, which taught us that a balance of power is of great importance. We abandoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted a new Constitution because of State powers, and lack of Congressional powers. The fear of a Central Government like Great Britain led The United States away from having such a strong Central Government. So the States were given autonomy to make most decisions & have many powers under early American Government. The States could never be enforced to do anything, except for war and closing borders, the States could
The Supreme Court can and will take down any state rulings that interfere in foreign affairs. If an unavoidable clash happens between state and federal law, then the state law is said to be obstructed by federal law. That Congress has not preempted the states from acting in this realm does not, however, mean that the Constitution itself is also silent. In a handful of cases the Supreme Court has held that there exists a “dormant foreign affairs power” that resides exclusively within the federal government — even though Congress has said nothing. Pursuant to this doctrine, the Court has struck down state statutes that intrude into that sphere of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts solely to the president and the Congress.