More handpicked essays just for you.
What do you understand by the concept of federalism essay 500 words
Features of federalism in the USA
Features of federalism in the USA
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Differences Between the UK and US Constitutions
The question requires us to see the difference between the UK and US
constitutions of the political systems and then analyse whether there
is actually a difference between the two. Constitution specifies the
powers of the state and the institutions or offices, which have and
excise state power. “A state is a human community that (successfully)
claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a
given territory” (Max Weber). There are two types of constitutions
negative constitutions which goes beyond principles that are beyond
people’s wishes this is common in the US constitution. Whereas the
positive constitution is an example of the British constitutions
constructed so that public wishes are kept. In the conclusion
After the independence the American leaders had to create a new
national congress and known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787
however they had a starting point of using the British constitutional
system .The differences between US and UK constitutions is that the US
constitution is codified meaning that it is written, federal
constitution which means authority of American government shared
between Washington and the other states. Which operates according to
the principles of federalism and separated institutions therefore
there is a tri-partite division of power between executive,
legislature, judiciary sharing power; both disperse and fragment
government power. This therefore provides a decentralised political
system and auntonomy is given to the state governent by the national
government. As each state has its legislative authority on matters
like tax and military etc.The United Kingdom is often said to have no
constitution, known as an unconfined, unitary constitution. There is
no written constitution like the US it consists of common law statues
and constitutional conventions. Whereas in the UK the local government
don’t have a lot of control they just merely follow the Westminster
rules. The new assembled Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and
Greater London Assembly have been very little power by the
Westminister compared to American states. However “The unitary state
The Articles of Confederation was ratified in 1871 and considered to be the first Constitution of the United States. The goal of the Articles of Confederation was to ensure each states maintains its independence, sovereignty, and freedom. The Articles were ratified by all 13 states. (Daniel, P.14, 2010) The Confederation Congress called for a convention to meet in 1787 to be held in Philadelphia. The nature of the convention was to revise the articles of Confederation. The Confederation congress wanted the Constitution to be changed in a way that would render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union. (Daniel, P.14, 2010)
You little tyrant king george off with your head.Since the Americans had a bad experience with one person having too much power they made a constitution that guarded against tyranny by, dividing power, making the branches able to check or limit each other, and dividing power between big and little states.
The thirteen American colonies were under the British control until they declared their independence from British in 1776. A year after the declaration of independence, the continental congress established the Article Of Confederation, which was the first constitution in the United States. According to manythings.org, “During that war, the colonies were united by an agreement called the Articles of Confederation”. It was later ratified in 1781, but it had many negatives because it was very weak. According to manythings.org, the Articles Of Confederation did not: organize a central government, create courts or decide laws, nor provide an executive to carry out the laws, and all it did was just create a Congress. This congress was very useless
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
There could be arguments supporting it and arguments going against it. As a result, the citizens of the UK saw a codified constitution as a necessity at that moment. However, there are many advantages of an uncodified constitution. The biggest advantage is the idea of flexibility. As societies are changing, and societal norms take new forms, it is very important for the constitution of countries to adapt to that quickly, as a country’s constitution should be in the best interest for its citizens.
At the present time, there is nothing wrong with the constitution, and if there was anything wrong with it, it could be changed by referendum, once again proving that becoming a republic is pointless. Currently, we are not tied down at all by the monarchy, and although the Queen does have the power to intervene in the running of our country, she doesn't out of tradition, and therefore, probably never will, bound by the tradition. If we become a republic, we would lose valuable ties with England and perhaps part of our heritage that goes with it. England can support us through many unfortunate events that we may face and England, being on the other side of the world may not, putting them in a position to offer us financial, military or other support.
In comparing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S constitution that was produced by the federal convention in 1787, it is important to note that the U.S operated under both documents. During March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect when it was ratified by Maryland. However, the U.S constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as soon as it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire. The main difference between the Articles of Confederations and the U.S Constitution is that the constitution didn’t force the laws, but established the why of the constitution. In establishing the why, it warranted the farmers to work on the government being better than the Articles of Confederations. They wanted the government
allowed it to last over 200 years. To sit and read through all of the
The Colonies were excited about having won their independence in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, but they still had to be able to create their own system of government which they thought would create a strong government which would not have an overpowering central government as they thought Great Britain had had. With this was the creation of the Articles of Confederation. These articles were meant to create strong local and state governments while not granting any power to the central government with the idea that it could not have any power over the states. The states were allowed to conduct their own diplomacy, or war, from nation to nation or even from state to state. States were allowed to create their own currency and put heavy import taxes on goods from other states. The federal government had no independent executive, nor could it levy taxes on any part of the states. It could not create or maintain a militia; this duty was left to the states. All decisions had to be ratified by all thirteen colonies. In thought, this was a great idea because only the most popular decisions would be ratified and stronger states could not hurt the smaller states through majority rule. In practice it did not work very well because it could be thwarted by a single stubborn state.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
In 1918, while the rest of Europe was still engaged in World War I, a newly formed communist government was developing in Russia. Much like 18th century Americans, they had just managed to overthrow what was viewed as a tyrannical government and hoped to form a new nation free of the injustices of the previous rule. Both countries wrote a new constitution as well as a declaration of rights to facilitate this, but their respective documents had vast differences. These disparities stemmed from differences in the ideologies of the new governments. The primary objectives of the Russian Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People and the later constitution were the “abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, socialist organization of society, and victory of socialism in all countries.” Americans wanted equality of opportunity and personal freedom instead of the social equality desired by the Russians. The American constitution and Bill of Rights were created to protect personal liberties and individual freedom while the Russians were more concerned with the welfare and equality of the population as a whole. This difference is partially due to the differences in the conditions leading to revolution in each country. The American Revolution was initiated by the wealthy in response to what they considered unfair treatment by a foreign ruler while the Russian revolution was instigated by the poor in reaction to centuries of oppression and exploitation by the wealthy within their own country.
After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems.
As stated in the first paper; The Constitution of the United States was designed to be a framework for the organization of our country’s government. Many foreign countries also have constitutions, which outline the rights of individuals and the powers of the law; such as the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. I will compare the similarities and differences of the US and Iraqi Constitutions and discuss Articles 2, 36, 39, & 90 and women’s rights of the Iraqi Constitution.
land if you can pay for it. If you are accused of a crime in the
The word ‘constitution’ is commonly used to describe a written legal document that embodies a set of rules and principles that ‘establish and regulate or govern the government’ of a country. The United Kingdom, however, does not have such a document.