Analysis Of The Constitution And The Constitution

So, even though the Constitution any not be perfect, it is still about as perfect as it can be, which is why America has survived so long. As Benjamin Franklin said, “ I confess that there several parts of the Constitution that I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” There are parts of the Constitution that I don’t agree with either, but I can’t guarantee that I won’t ever agree with them when I age. If you wanted, you could say I’m something close to a

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

The Constitution is the framework for today's modern US government (National, n.d.). "Defines the scope and limit of government power” (National, n.d., par. 2). The United States federal government today still follows the structure in the constitution. This shows that, as Adams said, "the three-and-a-half month convention (was) 'the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen” (Constitution, 2017, par. 4). "The United States Constitution has secured an unprecedented degree of human freedom, upholding the rule of law, securing the blessings of liberty, and providing the framework for the people of America to build a great, prosperous, and just nation unlike any other in the world" (Constitution, 2017, par. 1). Citizens in countries without a Bill of Rights like the United States’ don’t have the same freedoms as Americans. Without the Constitution, businesses would not run like they do today; schools could force beliefs on students; people wouldn’t be able to express themselves. Even though the Constitution is over 200 years old, it has retained its core values, while also adapting to the time (History, 2009). With a simple yet arduous process, the Constitution can be amended to stay with the times. There have been 27 amendments total to the United States Constitution. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are the most famous. These freedoms in the

The Constitution should change with society. Like all societies, ours changes with time. Like it or not, things will be different in the future. Although we agree with things we are doing now, we may not in the future. Our constitution is ment to be part of a lasting government in the land of the free. If the USA really wishes to be held up to that title, its people must be able to agree, and if needed, change the Constitution.

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the document of the principles and system of the United States government. It covers the goals of the new government, the system and purpose of each branch, how the states will work, how to amend the constitution, the supremacy of the national government, and the process of ratification. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of America, that must be followed by everyone. The Constitution of the United States was established at the 1787 Constitutional Convention and signed in 1787. The Constitution is the structure of America, it tells us how everything will work in this nation of ours. Without the Constitution, there would not be any specified rules of how this country is set up and how it works. The Constitution makes us who we are today, it establishes our system of government, our rules of what we can and can’t do, what the government can do for the people, and how everything in America is set up.

The Constitution is a better document that protected the liberties of the citizens of America. The reason is that after review of the Articles we see a lot of issues with how they tried not to be like the British parliament but needed up similar to how they manage their government. Also other reasons it wasn’t a strong document was because it seem like an inexperience on certain subject as for example the Articles had no executive branch but in the constitution now there is an executive branch. The major reason I see that the constitution was good for the liberties were because of the check and balance proposal. Running a government, the constitution is a stronger document that hits every issue including liberties for citizens. For example, dispute between states; they issued that problem to Congress according to the Articles. In the

     The constitution is the document that has framed and shaped the United States from inception. It is the document that is defended by all new presidents and also the document which affords the citizens of the United States freedoms and rights that cannot be removed. In its drafting it shaped the formation of a new country and a new style of governance. It is a ‘bottom up’ as opposed to established ways of government which are ‘top down’. However for all its virtues the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous and there is some debate of the intent of the drafters, did they intend to

Since this is an opinionated examination, I group myself as an Originalist. I trust that we ought to translate the Constitution indistinguishable today from when it was first composed. Originalism is championed for various principal reasons. To start with, it comports with the way of a constitution, which ties and restrains any one era from decision as indicated by the enthusiasm of the times. The Framers of the Constitution of 1787 recognized what they were about, shaping an edge of government for "ourselves and our Posterity." They didn't comprehend "We the general population" to be only a collection of people at any one point in time however a "people" as an affiliation, in reality various covering relationship, through the span of numerous

There are ten documents in “The Making of Constitution”, each document demonstrates the process of forming a constitution. For instance, these documents illustrate the disagreement between the servitude and abolition of slavery, the religious freedom, and the forming a new constitution. In document one, an African American names Cato appeals his emotion toward the bring back of servitude, after he and his family had tasted the sweets of liberty. He claimed that the state of bringing back the slavery is the cruelest act that a man can make, thus he suggests that hanging them would have been more merciful.

The U.S. Constitution divides the federal government into three branches, granting specific powers to each, much like “rock, paper, scissors”, constitutionally no branch of government is considered the strongest. ‘’Federal Legislative Branch– Makes laws (Congress), Federal Executive Branch – Carries out laws (President, Vice President, and Cabinet), and Federal Judicial Branch Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and Other Courts)’’. Each branch can change acts of the other branches, for example:

The Constitution (LEQ) The Constitution is a document that basically frames out the entire government of the United States of America. It was created because the Articles of Confederation wasn’t powerful enough, and the forefathers believed that the country wouldn’t survive as long as the government was being ran how it was. In some ways the Constitution is a continuation of the Articles such as Enlightenment ideals. However, the Constitution was also a major departure from the Articles in regards to federalism, and diplomacy.

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall argues that because of the dire effect of ‘patriotism’, many look past all of the issues and immoral mistakes hidden in the Constitution. He believed the system was flawed and useless considering slavery, and refused to praise the document. Marshall says, “To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.” (Remarks of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 1). Marshall claimed the American system of government was flawed because no political structure should need amendments, war, and transformation to realize it’s fundamental principles. Within multiple statements, the Founders may have preached equality, but to act upon such a principle. Professor Finkelman also believed that the Constitution protected the ideals of slavery, which made it survive much longer than it should

issues of all kind. The country I was born in did not guarantee freedom of

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.