Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitutionalism essay question
Constitutionalism essay question
Constitutionalism essay question
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitutionalism essay question
In yesterday's column, I detailed the similarities between Ted Cruz and Darrell Castle. Today let's take a closer look at the Constitution Party platform.
Aside from having a worthy candidate, what expectations should we have for our party? Can we continue to support a party which lacks congruence, and is no longer representative of our values?
The Constitution Party, just like their candidate, is a perfect fit, as well!
If you are a Christian or of a Judeo-Christian religion and feel that the unceasing degradation of our nation is the result of a blatant assault on our Christian origins and principles, then you should certainly read the following excerpt from the Constitution Party Platform. The Platform Preamble reads as follows:
Preamble to the Constitution Party Platform
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This
…show more content…
The Constitution Party is the 5th largest party in the nation, and is one of only five parties nationally recognized by the FEC. It was founded in 1992 as the US TaxPayer Party by Howard Phillips, among other pro-life Constitutionalists.
In 1999 the Party changed its name to the Constitution Party. The party is the only major party with an affinity for an “Originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, as prescribed by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823 writing, “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was
The Democratic/Republican party proved to be both strict and loose in their adhering to the documents in many ways. The Democratic/Republican party was known for being "strict" in following the document writings, and they didn't change their opinions much. For example, in Document A, Thomas Jefferson stated that "our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government". Democratic/Republicans believed that the states should control themselves instead of following rules under one national government. "The state's rights should be preserved unquestionably."
The creation of political parties originally caused some conflict. Many people thought that they were evil. As time went on, the people warmed up to the idea, and characterizations of the Republican and Federalist parties began. The Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, strictly interpreted the Constitution, but eventually, they loosened their views on the interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, Federalists held views on a loose interpretation of the Constitution, until they realized that a more strict interpretation could be a good thing.
For five years after Revolutionary war each state basically governed themselves. Although there was national government in place, it held little power over the states. It soon became apparent that the Articles of Confederation needed to be readdressed to combat the increasing problems that were brewing in the country. The first attempt to redress was dismissed by many of the states. Nevertheless, a second attempt produced results with twelve of the states sending delegates to redress the Articles of Confederation. Several delegates submitted plans for consideration that would strengthen the national government two such plans were the Virginia and the New Jersey Plan. Despite much of Virginia’s plan being accepted, if a compromise had not been reached the New Jerseys plan would have been more workable because it offered: equal representation of the states, provided operational means to congress, and was not a radical departure from the Articles of the Confederation.
The Jeffersonian-Republicans (also known as the Democratic-Republicans) were opposed to the Federalists from before 1801-1817. Leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French, whereas the Federalists supported the British. Each party had its set of views. The Federalists supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank (all ideas of the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton). The Democratic-Republicans opposed all of the said ideas and fought for states' rights and the citizens to govern the nation. Originally, each of these parties stuck to their own views and ideas, but eventually would accept eachother's views and use them as their own.
Before 1801, the Jeffersonian Republicans were usually strict constructionists of the constitution. However during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison they had to adopt some Federalist ideas. In many instances, the two parties completely interchanged their views on the construction of the constitution. During that period of time it was difficult to characterize anyone as a member of either the Federalist or Republican party based on how they interpreted the constitution.
As the country grows and matures into a great nation, people realize that change is inevitable and sometimes even needed. Within the time period of 1802 to 1817, many Jeffersonian Republicans realized that their ideals and principles weren’t always best for the nation. That is why they adopted some of the ideals of the old Federalist Party. Also, during this time, the Federalists died out. As realized after the Hartford Convention, the nation did not need nor want the Federalists anymore if the Democratic Republicans could get the job done. Although people changed a great deal during this time, it seemed to be beneficial to the nation. If people had not grown and never continued to learn and aspire to what is needed, then we may have never gotten to this great nation that the United States of America is today.
“Republican Party Platforms, Then and Now.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
The history of the Democratic party takes place back in 1792, when the supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans. In the 1790s Jefferson wanted a strong central government and this caused the parties to split in half. Making one government into two ideas so the people can pick for their self to follow a certain idea. The freedom of the Americans Constitution allows the people to have freedom in the fact that they can vote and make a difference. Most Democratic families believe that
"Amend the amendment." The Christian Century 131.10 (2014): 9. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 July 2015. . This
Democrat Party History: Along with the Republican Party, the Democrat Party is one of the major political parties. The Democrat Party started off as the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson. After Thomas Jefferson became President, the Democratic-Republican Party’s opposing party, the Federalists, could not gain control in the White House. The idea of the Democratic-Republican Party was to strengthen the power of the people and states. In 1824, the party split and became the Democrat Party. Today, the Democrat Party is known as the oldest political party and holds a high percentage of voter loyalties. For example, in 2012, candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had about 90% of the support from the Democratic Party identifiers.
According to the Party Politics in America book, the major American parties are composed of three interacting parts. They are the party organization, which includes party leaders and the activists who work for party causes and candidates; the party in the government which is composed of men and women who run for and hold public office on the party’s label; and the party in the electorate are those citizens who express an attachment to the party. (Party Politics in America book)