More handpicked essays just for you.
Evolution of the us constitution
Discuss and analyze the historical evolution of the us constitution
Essays on the developement of the us constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evolution of the us constitution
Zachary Starbard Dr. Datta American Government 5/10/16 The United States Constitution The 18th century the United States created a new constitution. The Constitution was made to layout the principles of the American government in what they can do to their people. It complete this task by outlining the basic rights of the citizens and detailing what the government can do to govern its people. Without the Constitution America probably would have ended up failing. Although there are some people that think the Constitution needs to change with the times while others think that it needs to remain the same. It is my belief the Constitution's basic structure should stay the same but I'm not against a new adaptation of the Constitution and agree with treating it as a …show more content…
Articles four, five, and six cover federalism which describes the responsibilities of state governments and their relationship with the federal government. The last article discusses the amount of ratifications needed for the Constitution to be enacted. With the Constitution in place the young America had a good example on how they were supposed to run their form of government. If the Constitution hadn’t been enacted it is fully possible that America could have fallen into one of the many forms of government they were trying to escape. Secondly, I'll go over what is called originalism and non-originalism. Originalist believe that we should stick to the same Constitution that was written in the 18th century. In Douglas Linder's “Theories of Constitutional Interpretation” he compares originalism versus non-originalism and gives reasons for each. One reason is “Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives” (Linder). Judges are scared that they will lose their power and we'll have to give it up to those who they deem irresponsible or not good enough so
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
The Articles of Confederation was the nation’s first Constitution. The articles created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state would have one vote in the House of Congress, no matter the size of the population. Members of the one-house Congress, such as Pennsylvania, agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or a separate judiciary. Under the article, there wasn’t a strong independent executive.
Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.
After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
It would be most problematic if we had a strict "originalist" judicial history because blacks would be only 3/5 of a person, women would never have been enfranchised, and the Senate would still be chosen by the House of Legislature. The Supreme Court (consisting of the most learned and able legal experts in the country) should have the ability to interpret certain aspects of the Constitution in order to prevent the Constitution from becoming a dated, historical document. Problems will continue to rise that the fathers of this country could not have possibly envisioned. Robert Bork's "originalist" view is far too restrictive in practice to allow the Constitution to be as vital today as it was 200 years ago.
The Articles of Confederation set up a government that consisted of a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all states. There was no president or judiciary so any decision required nine of the thirteen states’ votes. At this point in time the United States of America ... ... middle of paper ... ... o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.”
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.
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.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
The United States Constitution and the Articles have several ever present difference that some considered to be too radical. In terms of levying taxes, the Articles Congress could request states to pay taxes while with the Constitution; the Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals. The Articles government had no court system while the Constitution created a court system to deal with issues between citizens and states. The lack of provisions to regulate interstate trade the Articles possessed created large economic problems, leading into a depression in the mid 1780's. The Constitutional Congress has the right to regulate trade between states. The Constitution has a strong executive branch headed by our president who chooses cabinet and has checks on power of the other two branches; the Articles had no executive with power. The president merely presided over Congress. The Articles took almost 5 years to ratify due to the fact that 13/13 colonies needed to amend the Articles before it could go into affect, with the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ¾ of the states legislatures or national convention had to approve. During the years under the Articles, foreign soldiers occupied US forts during our early years, we were unable to force them out due to the fact that Congress could not draft troops, and they depended on the states to contribute to the forces. Under the Constitution we have the ability to raise an army to deal with any sort of military situations. In terms of passing laws, under the Articles 9/13 states needed to approve legislation while under the Constitution, 50% plus 1 of both houses plus the signature of the president is needed to pass a law. The Articles had a huge problem when it came to state representation. Under the Articles every state only received one vote, regardless of its size, this hindered the power of the larger states. With the Constitution, the upper house (Senate) has 2 votes and the lower house (House of Representatives) is based on population. When two states had disputes the Articles had a complicated system of arbitration to go through before any resolution was reached, under the Constitution, the federal Court system handles disputes between states.
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. 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. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
The Constitution is the skeleton of the United States. Nothing the United States does goes against what our leaders have interpreted The constitution to stand for, but interpretation is subjective. Without a standard lens to view this historical and legal document with, it is virtually worthless. The three primary viewpoints each have appealing characteristics to them. I think a mix between all three interpretations is the most sensible way to look at The Constitution, but Constructionism should be the predominant perspective on The Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution, Americans should consider the frame of society, but view The Constitution as a document that means what the founding fathers intended for it to be, and when all else fails, interpret the language exactly as it is written.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.