Differences Of State Constitution Vs. United States Constitution

In the United States, each of the fifty states has its own states constitution, which contains the same basic provisions as the United States Constitution; however, states constitution is generally more detailed than the national constitution.In the United States, each of the fifty states has its own states constitution, which contains the same basic provisions as the United States Constitution; however, states constitution is generally more detailed than the national constitution.In the United States, each of the fifty states has its own states constitution, which contains the same basic provisions as the United States Constitution; however, states constitution is generally more detailed than the national constitution.In the United States,

The states have taken an entirely different route. They have opted to create statutory constitutions, rather than follow the liberal one that the federal government follows. This means that these documents limit the powers of government, rather than empower them as the U.S. Constitution does. Hence, their constitutions are far more extensive, detailing each aspect of the local government (O’Connor et al., 2011).

In conclusion, state law and federal law are very similar as, they are each meant to dictate a measure of safety for the citizens of the United States of America. According to the United States Constitution federal law, which is dictated, allows the federal government the power to make laws for the people and for the country as a whole. State laws are meant to allow each state to be allowed to govern them and handle the issues within their states. This power was given to them from the Bill of Rights that was also outlined in the Constitution (FindLaw, 2012).

Generally speaking, State constitutions perform different functions (generally limit plenary powers rather than grant enumerated powers), have different origins (from the people

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787, the United States just had 13 states. The Founding Fathers believed that more states would want to join the Union in the future. They saw that it would be significant for new states to have the same form of government as the original states had. Since then there are now over 50 states that have similar characteristics which were developed centuries ago; although, resembling the creation of new ideas and inventions, current state government had many problems from being the way it is today, it also has many important features that benefit many people, as well as plays an important role in how American democracy and government works.

The Constitution defines the separation of branches, accounts for checks and balances and division of power, and includes a Bill of Rights designed to protect individual rights from the Federal Government. Interestingly enough, the protection of individual rights were excluded from the United States Constitution originally, and only added later (Bowers. 1993). While having an extremely thorough and detailed Constitution has its benefits, it also leaves room for many different types of interpretations. The Judicial Branch court systems is a specific example of a detailed Constitution being constantly interpreted. Unlike the United States Constitution, the Nevada Constitution tends to be more specific regarding limitations on the powers of the state. Since state constitutions tend to be longer and thus more specific, judges have less room for interpretation as the state constitution, even in conformity with the United States Constitution, is more defined resulting from State Constitutions needing to cover more functions pertaining to state issues.

In the United States Constitution the states are dependent on the federal government; however, in the Texas Constitution the counties are inferior to the state government. Both constitutions contain the principles needed for a representative democratic government. For instance, the U.S. Constitution was made to replace the Articles of Confederation, a weak decentralized form of national government with no president and inability to levy taxes. The U.S. Constitution was made to

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.

I found this unit to very interesting because although I knew that each state had its own constitution I did not realize some of the similarities and differences that they shared. It is important to understand your states constitution because we have more contact with state and local governments on a daily basis than we do with the federal government. Above I made this table that visually shows us the United States and Georgia Constitution so we can compare and contrast them. As we can see the United States Constitution has seven articles and was only ratified once in 1787, while the Georgia Constitution has eleven articles and had been ratified 10 times with the more recent in 1983. Looking at my table I bolded the similarities between the

Mapp v. Ohio was a historical case in which the United States Supreme Court declared that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, could not be held against you in court ("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court," 2015). The exclusionary rule and selective incorporation were applied to this case. The ?exclusionary rule? which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution along with selective incorporation which is how the rights out lined in the Constitution apply to the states and the courts must acknowledge these rights. (The Definition of Selective Incorporation, 2015). This case was also significant due to the fact that the decision would open up the court to a number of difficult cases concerning how to apply the exclusionary rule.

For the states of the union that make up the larger whole of America, there is a similar need to ensure that constitutions are responsive to constituent's needs. States, given their small size and desire to provide local services to citizens, have perhaps even more of a need to bestow individualized attention, as the needs of residents shift and change. But state constitutions are far more limited in their scope: "The U.S. Constitution represents the states granting limited powers to the federal government, while state constitutions represent the limit of powers that the people have granted to their state governments.... States may amend their constitutions to suit their needs, but the

Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in

First, supporters for the continued use of the exclusionary rule maintain that its ability to protect a citizen from unreasonable search and seizures should not be neglected. By protecting individuals from unreasonable search and seizures, this law serves to uphold a citizen’s privacy and basic constitutional rights. For example, if a law enforcement officer enters a house to search for a suspect without a warrant, any evidence obtained through that search which does not have to do with that particular crime/suspect may not be used in court. Additionally, they claim that this rule serves as a deterrent against police misconduct. Since this rule doesn’t allow for illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, they believe that law enforcement officials will be discouraged from conducting unreasonable search and seizures because the evidence obtained from these searches would not be able to be used in court. Without the exclusionary rule, law enforcement officials, as well as anyone else, could easily manufacture false evidence or use illegally obtained evidence to be submitted in court. This kind of corruptive police behavior could potentially result in innocent victims being locked away. While others claim, that by not excluding this illegally obtained evidence, the court is participating in illegal activity which may result in the integrity of our justice system to be compromised.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the country that establishes the 3 branches of government executive, legislative and judicial. Constitutional law establishes the framework that gives the legislative body the ability to establish laws. It also serves as a protection of our fundamental rights, by not allowing government to overreach its authority. Each of the 50 states is sovereign with its own executive, legislative and judicial branches. This allows each state to maintain its individuality and govern its people accordingly. However, should a conflict between state and federal law arise then the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, states that state laws must yield to federal acts.

While comparing constitutions of other countries, I found some similarities to our constitution. The constitutions that I compared were for Germany, Pakistan, and the United States. What I compared in the constitutions were the year the constitution was established, the number of articles in the constitution, and a few of the rights of the citizens of each country.