Essay about Constitutional Authority Of The President

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

The Federalists and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

Approximately a decade after the founding of America, it became apparent that the Articles of Confederation was too weak to sustain the nation. Without an executive branch, a national court system, and with a limited congress, the national government was rendered powerless. Subsequently, many discontented leaders began to draft the Constitution, which will ignite an intense debate from its drafting and proposal in 1787 to its eventual ratification in 1789. On one hand, the Federalists urges for the ratification of the Constitution to establish a stronger national government. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists oppose the ratification of the Constitution and favors keeping power in state and local governments. During these years of debate,

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.

Following the first inauguration within the newly recreated constitution tailored to the liking of all participating states, the well tough words on the paper were put into effect of the reality of bureaucratic system. Fearing the recreation of the tyrant that they finally broke free from, the people of America were sceptic about giving authority to a central government. Realizing from the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the people surrendered to the fact that an authoritative central government was indeed needed. Although giving into the demands of reality, the people were still tied to their fears. Although seemingly well phrased in the constitution, the limits of the authority given to the central government once again became an issue that developed two primary political views. The Republican Party

The argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists might seem long gone to American citizens, but still their philosophical foundations shape the teams, scope and size of the battlefield. These philosophies go back to two lone men, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Both fought aggressively for a government based on their ideas, and both did make portions of the now-standing American government. This essay will outline the political, social and economic philosophies of both men, how their philosophies influenced the government today, and a closing opinion.

In the late eighteenth century parties developed gradually after the inauguration of the federal government in the United States which gave rise to persistent divisions among the officeholders. This was mainly because there were questions on the extent of the new government’s powers and authority. There were no proper structures on the powers and jurisdiction of the national and state government which led to conflicts. This was finally revealed in 1791 when the debate over the establishment of the Bank of United States showed the huge difference in the ideas and opinions about the balance of power state and national power (Sutton, 2002). This thereby led to the establishment of two different political factions; the republicans and the federalists. The republicans were proponents of limiting the federal government powers and giving the state more authority thereby expanding popular participation in politics. The federalists on the other hand strongly supported the national government and international ties especially with Great Britain and pushed for more power to be handed to the federal government. This paper looks at the Federalists views and the main motivator or the reasons why the Federalists pushed for a central government in the United States.

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.

The Power of President and Congress Every four years, together with not only people from over the world but also American are more excited and eager to wait for the result of U.S. presidential candidate because they elected and believed that he will bring them a hope to maintain and improve the whole scale of economic well-being as well as national security. The president is the one who has the highest power on hand to manage, regulate and solve national and international issues; however, people seem to ignore the role of Congress. In fact, the president would not be able to run the government himself without Congress’s assistance. Especially, in term of the foreign policy, it is defined as a series of strategies chosen by the state to ensure America’s interests and to achieve goals

The enactment of the Constitution fabricated the United States’ identity. Through the ratification process dynamic factions developed and created the initial formation of political parties. The establishment of both the Federalist and anti-federalist groups contributed key components in the formation of the present day system of government. While the Federalists illuminated national awareness and necessity, the anti-federalists assured the protection of individual rights and liberties. To this day, these fundamental ideologies outline the basic debate individuals discuss throughout the United States. As a democratic republic, the initiation of participation and collaboration through

During the Great Debate, there were 2 sides. One was the Federalists, which beleived that the Constitution should be ratified, and the other, which were Anti-Federalists, were against the Federalist and beleived that the Constituation should not be ratify. In conclution, the Anti-Federalist was the

To encourage a reading response to this text, I will implement grand discussion and debate. We will first read the text together as a whole, in pairs, and independently. We will discuss each man who was a part of writing the Constitution came up with arguments to convey their stand on the subject. We will talk about the difference between persuasive and argumentative text. We will talk about when each should be used. We will talk about our need for a “Classroom Constitution.” Students will be assigned to groups to discuss their ideas about how our classroom will run. Each group will choose a leader to represent them to the class to show their ideas to the class before we vote on a Classroom Constitution.