More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalism in america its features
The role of federalism in the united states
The role of federalism in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It is clearly obvious that our country’s Constitution was founded on a distrust. It is Found on a distrust of large government, the public, and our elected legislature. With time people have come take on the philosophy of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes allowing them to trust our government because “People are Dumb butts” (Kallas). In recent years some of the citizens are starting to recognize the distrust in the people around them and the distrust of the people leading our country. Some of the over arching areas of distrust are the electoral college, unelected courts, the senate, and checks and balances, these parts of our government's structure enable the political leaders of our country to strip away our rights and involve their own personal interest in political decisions. Our Constitution’s distrust stems from our earlier form of government, the Articles of Confederation. This Articles were created quickly after the American Revolution therefore they proved to be inadequate. This form of government was essentially an agreement amongst all thirteen colonies that served as their first form of government. This confederation was made with a strong distrust …show more content…
This form of government is also known as a pure democracy because the people decide on all issues. The best form of voting in a pure democracy would be a one voter, one vote system. People would have all the say instead of elected positions having a large amount of say. The Framers knew that a vast majority of the people would become disinterested in the politics because of how spread out they would become. With the amount of people we have spread out over our large country it is hard to care about a person who lives on the other side of the United States. This is why in our form of government we elect officials that will express a certain area of people’s
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
You may be thinking how did the constitution stop tyranny? Well we have the answer. Let's start of with what tyranny means, that a leader or king abuses their power. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? Well they abuse their power bad deeds. The constitution guard against tyranny in these four ways. Federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and small states vs. large states.
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
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.
In fact, the Constitution contains provisions for direct and indirect election of the different parts of the legislature and the executive, based on overlapping but distinct electorates (Muller 1251). In addition, many people believe that, the Electoral College process of electing the president necessitates replacement with a direct popular vote to honor our democratic form of government in the United States. Moreover, in a democratic form of government, the authority rests with the people rather than in one or a few as in a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government. People believe a direct election supports the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote” (Wagner 577). Therefore, the winner-take-all system inaccurately represents the will of the American citizens since not all candidates garner any electoral votes. On the other hand, a popular vote for the president could lead to many runoffs if neither candidate reaches a majority, creating a bigger opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation of the vote, which would not truly represent the will of the people, states, or country. The Electoral College sometimes fails to represent the national popular vote because states use the winner-take-all approach and not some proportional method for the representation of its voters. However, the Founding Fathers were not too keen on
The Constitution is the foundation of our county it represents liberty and justice for all. We are able to live freely and do, as we desire because of the constitution. The constitution was, signed September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It took time and many debates were held before an agreement was achieved in both the drafting and ratification of the constitution. These disagreements came with several compromises before the constitution was fully ratified on May 29, 1790, with Rhode Island being the last and the thirteenth. The First, challenge was the Articles of Confederation; it was a sort of a draft of the Constitution but was weak and inadequate. Second, obstacle was the Anti-Federalists fight for more
The United States Constitution has received much criticism, both before and after its ratification in 1789. A wide array of thinkers from across the ages of the republic have offered criticisms about the nature, scope, and even fine details of the Constitution, sometimes providing solutions they think better themselves. Truly, however, two major schools of criticisms arise: those condemning the implications of having a document like the Constitution supreme over the nation, and those condemning specific parts and clauses of the document itself. Both criticisms based on the view that the Constitution is pro-slavery and those arguing against the nationalist nature of the document are unfounded.
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.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.
The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.