Framers Vs Constitution

With each state having its own government, disputes arose between individual states. A Federal court system was important and was greatly needed to settle the disputes. States often fought over trade and power. A federal court that controlled all of the states would have helped tremendously. If all the states followed the same rules and had the same federal court, they would have all been

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, they came together with one common purpose in mind. They needed to form a fair and solid system of government that would stand the test of time; one that was both fair for the people and would not involve a monarchy. Each of these men had their own ideas on what would constitute this system, however, so many compromises had to be made. Together, the men gathered in Philadelphia created a federal system of government and drafted a constitution outlining this government. They took care in developing three branches of federal government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch would gain too much power, thus avoiding any

This quote convinces me that the Judicial Branch created by James Madison was compelling because the branch included the federal court systems. With the Judicial Branch the Virginia plan gave a lot of power to the national government because the federal court systems have power when it is the system of adjudication authorized by the US Constitution and established by Congress.

The framers of the constitution walked a thin line to create a government that was strong but not too strong. Did they succeed? Are the powers of the federal government still separated enough?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set up the "federal court system with limited power" (Oakes et al.,, 2015, p. 222). It set up the Supreme Court as the top, or head, of the three-teired Judicial branch. Further, it let the federal government set up laws based on the Constitution. The Constitution differed significantly from the British conventional laws and practices the colonies were so desperate to escape. The federal judiciary wasn't welcomed at first by some of the Founding Fathers. There was a fear that the federal government would become tyrannical, and would override the individual state powers, as well as individuals rights and freedoms. The colonies, after being treated the way they were under British law, wanted to make sure that nothing like that could happen under their new government.

The United States Constitution created a form of government intended to balance government power and individual rights through checks and balances. A sense of a limited form of government is created through this principle as the Framers wanted a government that would be effective but not too powerful. A limited form of government is effective as it may limit what the government may do but it gives citizens certain rights that cannot be take away. The separation of powers allows duties and responsibilities of the government to be able to be divided into three co-equal branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each branch has certain powers to check or stop actions of the other branches. This is similar to a game of American Football shown

After the American Revolution the newly independent colonies entered a period called the critical Period. This was called the critical period because the colonies faced many foreign and domestic issues. This called for an end to the Articles of Confederation and the creation of a new government.

Stephen B. Presser argues that “for the Framers of the Constitution the practice of politics was all about how to distribute power within the government in order to preserve private property, individual rights, and the rule of law which secured both.” The constitution has kept these rights for not just the majority but also the minority people of the United States of America. The framers wanted a self-government that would balance power so that the minorities would not lose these rights. The check and balance system of our country has held true despite the party system that our framers despised greatly. The framers believed that the party system would not be helpful to our government, but the minorities have more power today and there are more parties than ever in history.

George Washington said, “I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years” (Gilder Lehrman). Today, we have oldest written constitution in the world. It has been able to endure because it is flexible and it stresses liberty and equality to the American people. The book states, “It has endured for more than two centuries as the framework of government because it has changed over time” (Overview). Thomas Jefferson, based on his notion that "the world belongs to the living" was technically right. We are the living and our Constitution is basically the same as it was when he made that statement.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Even though it is the supreme law of the land, it is not well defined; it isn’t specific on multiple areas. Because of that, the constitution has been misjudged and miss interpreted in the past. However, there are certain parts were the Constitution is specific. It is partially specific on elements of the Constitution that embodies the republican principle of limited government, the three institutions in the government that embodies the commitment of representation: the House of Representatives, the senate, and the presidency, amendments of the constitution that expand the democratic representation, and passages that expresses the

Our founding fathers had grand ideas of what this new world would and could be, they just had to all agree on how it would work. During the process of ratifying the United States Constitution, major concerns included discomfort with creating a strong, central government that would necessarily take away some states' rights, and with the lack of any guaranteed personal freedoms. It could not have been ratified at all if it had not been for the promise of adding the Bill of Rights. The right to display a real process of government was a central issue in American in 1787.

With the passing of Justice Scalia in West Texas on February 13, 2016, at the age of seventy-nine, the Supreme Court now proceeds forward with its cases with eight justices (Liptak). These eight justices now represent the polarized state of American politics. The nomination process that now represents the foremost partisan conflict originally based itself more on qualifications and less on ideology, but with the failed appointment of Robert Bork in 1987, the process transformed its focus from the merits of a candidate to the interests of political parties. As such, when observing the confirmations of Scalia in 1986 and Kagan in 2010, Justice Scalia’s appointment process lacked politicization and controversy in comparison to the multitude of

The Constitutional Framers envisioned a national government that, like Plato’s cave, would be “at a distance and out of sight” of the everyday affairs and thoughts of ordinary Americans. They had envisioned Washington D.C. to be a cultural mecca on par with the capitals of European nations, both economically and socially. The reality of the Washington Community was a disaster compared to the lofty ambitions of the founding fathers; a desolate purgatory to be endured. The socially and economically barren capital combined Spartan living conditions with isolation. High turnover was prevalent in both the house and senate; a disappointment to the Federalists who had hoped for institutional memory within congress. Instead of creating the

The foundation of the Supreme Court began with the earliest articles of the constitution. More specifically, Section II of Article III dictated that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”(National Archives). This language laid out the legal precedent for which the Supreme Court could be built. Due to the intentionally vague nature, the founding fathers intended for the first Congressional Contingent to build the workings of the court. Inspirations for such a Federal legal system arose from several sources. Chiefly among these sources was British Common Law and the Magna Carta. The first Congress built the Supreme Court in its original form of six judges, and from there, the court evolved in the early 19th century and exerted its influence on the development of the United States of America.

Federal trial courts were organized within state borders which give citizens access to the federal judicial system, also allows federal judges to familiarize themselves with the geographical areas where they are serving. This approach was considered decentralized, and it ensured the federal courts in those locations understood the local areas they served, as it united our nation under a uniform system of federal law. Initially, the federal system consisted of a single Supreme Court, regional trial courts, and appellate court; however, this changed frequently, as to new states entering the union require assessments on the effectiveness of the federal judicial system was performed. Also, as the nation evolved or grew, legal disputes started to involve more frequently the federal courts. After the constitution had been established, the United States government and states debated in federal judiciary the issues associated with federalism. Usually, they involved extending the federal judicial system to new states, federal procedure, and balancing state and federal