A Report On The United States ' The Constitution Act Of The Commonwealth Act From Making Valid Laws

The United States had some fundamental problems in the late 1780 's. Many saw this and were looking for a way to produce a national government that would be more than the virtually powerless government the United States currently had. Pennsylvania was represented in the federal convention by a larger delegation than any of the other states.

Government was created, and has always been, to enforce law and order. “Governments almost certainly originated with the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order” (Purposes, 2016, par. 2). Without government, the people would fall into disorder and chaos, causing unhappiness and hardship throughout the nation they live in; it would be anarchy. Constitutional governments not only protect citizens from foreign threats, but also domestic threats from within. In America, a citizen’s freedoms extend as far as they want until they infringe upon the rights of another citizen. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are only some of the many rights promised to the American people. These rights are set forth by a well-

The United States and Australian constitutions have their share of similarities and differences. While they both have the same aim and goals, they are still two different countries with their own views, constitutions, and types of of government, and of course different approaches. As I go deeper into this I will explain how the constitutions are so similar yet so different.

2. In Meyers v. Commonwealth, Meyers argued that the court misused its discretion by allowing his wife to testify. He said that his act of pointing a gun at his wife was a privileged conversation. The court did misuse its discretion based on the law, but the court’s decision to allow his wife to testify was a harmless error.

1. The framers of the constitution had conflicting goals and interests. The first attempt at a new arrangement for self-government relied on institutions that were to weak to achieve action on behalf of the nation. The framers were able to limit its influence on the structure of government by working with many representatives of the states and using strong leaders to work through many different plans.

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why? The most likely court with jurisdiction over Tanya's suit will be the federal court in the state of Confusion. That is because Tanya's suit raises a federal issue, that of the regulation of interstate commerce. Generally, such a case would be filed in the federal court in the same state where the alleged harm manifested itself. However, there is also a possibility that Tanya could seek to use the concept of "long-arm" jurisdiction (Nowak & Rotunda, 2007) to have the case adjudicated in the federal court in Denial based on the fact that the illegal regulation in Confusion affected some of the residents of the state of Denial, irrespective of where the harm was caused.

The Virginia Plan was the proposal to create a strong national government and which had a bicameral legislature. The New Jersey Plan was a proposal to create a weak national government and had a unicameral legislature. The Great Compromise was a plan to have a house elected based on state population and a state selected Senate with new members for each state.

The creation of the Constitution is an important and major piece of American history. Before the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation were devised to ensure the natural rights of Americans were protected. Several issues surrounded the original Articles of Confederation. The question of how to strengthen the articles seemed to be quite a struggle, until the creation of the Constitution. Not only did the Constitution create stronger guidelines for the new country, but it also partnered with the Declaration of Independence in relieving some grievances of the people. One other important deal that occurred to enable the drafting of the Constitution is The Great Compromise. Without it, we may not have the Constitution as we know it today.

1. In Winstead v. Commonwealth, Winstead filed a motion to stop Rainwater from testifying about anything that had occurred during their marriage and to exclude anything they said to each other during their marriage. This motion specifically tried to exclude the conversations between Winstead and Rainwater regarding what she should tell the police about where he was the night of the murder, but the court ruled that conversations between couples about an alibi were not privileged because an alibi was intended for disclosure.

As the Articles of Confederation wanted to completely rid the system of American government of an Executive Branch completely, its first focus was on the Legislative Branch, hoping to give power solely to a group of people that would vote on what is best for the betterment of the country. However, as the Continental Congress realized that a stronger central government was needed (due to factors such as The Jay-Gardoqui Treaty and Shay's Rebellion), after much debate, the Executive Branch was finally added. Furthermore, the focus of this system was still centered around the Legislative Branch; this is because the American colonies wanted to stay as far away from British tyranny as they could. To avoid leaders who could be bought out for law

This chapter first begins by discussing America's constitutional history within the role of the federal government. It explains how liberals have changed from the mainly classic liberals such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, to ones such as John Dewey and John Maynard Keynes. It also addresses how legislative power is delegated, including the role federal bureaucracy plays in this area. One issue that is brought up in the process of this is whether the practice of delegating legislative power is constitutional or not. Expanding on this is the issue of separation of powers, especially since Article 1 vests all legislative power in Congress. Continuing on with this same thought is the issue of delegating in the domestic context, because while

“Roses are red, violets are blue, and at times, I like you.” This is a small, simple phrase at first glance. Based on an individual’s character, however, they may take it a different way. As the audience changes, so does the meaning. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the same principle remains. It is extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution, because of its complexity and fragility. Also, the fact is when time changes, people change. In other words, different generations have different interpretations of what the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to textualism, causing the judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether they can make new laws, even though their true vocation is to interpret the laws. Textualism trials test everything. Since the Constitution was written in 1788, they figure that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the current laws of the Constitution should be interpreted the same way as the original. An example of textualism would be the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, and the original Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. So in this paper, I am comparing and contrast these judges’ arguments of textualism, to decipher which one is correct.

At the second constitutional conference leading to Confederation the delegates discussed terms in which lead to the Constitutional act of 1867. This act was further passed by The British Parliament creating dominion of Canada at Confederation. This act provided union of three colonies; Nova Scotia, Canada and New Brunswick and placed a federal state with a parliamentary statement based on Britain and the United Kingdom. Although the creating of Upper and Lower Canada was a success “its ridged colonial structures also set the stage for the rebellions in the two Canada’s.”(Historic Canada) The act was also known from a voting franchise which included quality from the 18th and 19th century, primarily because it included women who owned a house in Lower Canada. MacDonald had believed that he was responsible for forming Constitution in which he claimed that “not one man at the conference had the slightest idea of constitution making, what ever is good or ill in the constitution is mine” (source). By the end of the Quebec conference, a

as a loan. This constitutes the main problem of the contract, since the prosecutors were

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the