Dworkin's Moral Reading Of The Constitution

While there could be distinct differences between those who supported ratifying the Constitution and those who did not, according to Maier, for a variety of reasons, the lines were often blurred and seemed to cross between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. For example, many Federalists were not always associated with the political party that eventually came into existence and carried that same name as Federalists. In addition, Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification often became supporters of the Constitution, at least, once amendments were promised. This was not simply Federalists versus Anti-Federalists, a larger, more powerful federal government versus smaller, less powerful state governments. While many at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wanted a stronger confederation between the states, it was the few who wanted a stronger federal government and who supported the Constitution that took the name – Federalists. All those in opposition were deemed Anti-Federalists, yet with time, the lines between the two were blurred. Supporters of the Constitution understood the Constitution was not perfect; the opposition could agree with much of the new

For over two decades, citizens of the United States of America have had strong feelings on the subject of congressional term limits- more specifically, the imposition of term limits on Supreme Court Justices as well as the restriction on judicial review. This controversial issue has been further publicized due to the more recent publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Levin, a talk show host, makes his term limit case in his book about several amendments that have been attempted in the past.

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

The article called “Our Imbecilic Constitution” by Sandford Levinson, is an interesting piece that includes the author’s opinions and criticism about the U.S Constitution and why it should be amended to meet the needs of this generation. One of the author's main points focused on the effects of the presumed outdated U.S constitution within our current government. (Explain) Secondly, the author offers a contrast between the U.S. Constitution and the states Constitution. One example from the article includes the state of California. The state of California Constitution was considered dysfunctional and stupid to the U.S Constitution in its unaltered conditions. The author says that even though this so-called strong system of separation of power and “check and balance”

The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard was published in 1913. Beard argues that the founding fathers prepared the constitution of the United States to protect their personal financial interests. He also argues that the constitution was written by an “elite” who were only concerned about protecting what they owned and their status. In his interpretation he states, “ The Constitution was not created by the “whole people” as the jurists have said; neither was it created by “the states” as southern nullifiers long contended; but it was the work of a consolidated group whose interests knew no state boundaries and were truly national in their scope.

“Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances. Substitute statute for decision, and you shift the center of authority, but add no quota of inspired wisdom.” —— Benjamin N. Cardozo[1]. In the view of many citizens, Supreme Court Justices are like legal machines, interpreting constitution to promise American people of equal justice. Throughout American history, numerous case laws have established the pattern of judicial decisions of U.S., thus making little room for new legislation. However, even Supreme Court Justices are human beings, who can be influenced by various factors. It’s not that simple to determine the inclination of a justice to his or her religious belief, political philosophy and ideology. The essence of judicial process requires a justice to vote under any circumstance based on law, precedents and most important, constitution. No Supreme Court Justice will say that he or she has personal or political

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and

Since the ratification of the Constitution, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed. The Constitution of the United States of America was Officially ratified in 1789. This makes the document over two-hundred years old. Since the time of its writing and eventual ratification, the document has been amended and interpreted in many ways. Whether it be prohibition to the abolition of slavery. The Constitution has been constantly updated over time. It has not laid stagnant with the time. The Constitution has remained the document off of which we have based our country for many years. A major question that has been posed is, why do we as a country still feel bound to this document written so many years ago? The reasons are fairly simple. The Constitution of the United States can and has been over many years amended, the laws and thoughts of a people can be expressed through the Constitution, and the constitution has functioned, with a few bumps in the road, fairly well over the last two-hundred years. The people of the United States should still stand behind this Constitution because it infact still serves us well today in many ways. A few being that it can be amended and “Fixed”, and another being that it does still protect our rights as citizens.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

     When the Federalist party was organized in 1791, those people who favored a strong central government and a loose constitutional interpretation coagulated and followed the ideals of men such as Alexander Hamilton. The first opposition political party in the United States was the Republican party, which held power, nationally, between 1801 and 1825. Those who were in favor of states rights and a strict construction of the constitution fell under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. These Jeffersonian republicans, also known as anti-federalists, believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution. They wanted state’s rights and individual rights, which they believed could only be granted under

According to Antonin Scalia there are two types of approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalist and living. Which approach do you believe the Court should take? Why? How does this approach affect the policymaking process?

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

Arguably one of the most influential legal theorists of the 20th century, Ronald Dworkin’s dealings with law’s interpretation and integrity has lead to inevitable contradictions with that of positivist ideology, with his work essentially revitalising a method of thinking that had long been considered dead and buried. Perhaps most notoriously, Dworkin combated the positivist theory of his former teacher and predecessor as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University, H.L.A. Hart. When comparing the two, it is apparent that Dworkin and Hart disagree on a plethora of issues, however there exist several