Henry Martyn Robert's Rules Of Order

1. What type of decision was the group instructed to reach (e.g. majority, consensus, authoritarian, etc.)

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

Henry’s Speech Was a Call to Action. What Did He Want His Fellow Virginians To Do? What Were His Justifications For The Proposed Action? How Did Henry Address The Concerns Of Those Who Did Not Agree With Him?

On May 28th Butler proposed that the convention provide against having its business interrupted by preventing the absence of members and by presenting “licentious publications of their proceeding” (_________). The convention did not, and probably could not have adopted the first of these suggestions, but it did take secrecy very

meetings to debate issues before making a final decision. In handling routine tasks, he was

He would eventually bring these ideas in front of the committee to get the balance of congress and the president to try and achieve the same balance of power. The government that he was a proponent of was one that was very similar to that of the Brits but the one major change was that everything stayed internal to the government without any outside influences. The views of many of the for-fathers were as diverse as the areas of the country they came from. The convention provided a unique platform for all of the opposing views to bring their opinions, concerns and ideas to the table for discussion. The convention also allowed for the open sharing of ideas and somewhat of a melting pot for different theories and conjectures. Not only did this format allow for the representatives of their idea to voice and present them but it also allowed for those opposed to object and state their reasons why.

Britain, to begin with, has no written constitution due to the country’s own constitutional structure’s stability. It remains uncodified, yet it’s legal sources stem from Acts of parliament, European Union law, equity and common law,. Therefore the varying powers of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law will be considered against these sources.

8. Q. Why was the three-fifths rule necessary to achieve ratification of a new constitution?

It was 1775. War was looming over the British Colonies like a thundercloud yet to strike. Yet, somehow, many high-ranking Virginian delegates thought otherwise. However, one skilled politician decided to express his own feelings. Patrick Henry, a well-taught lawyer and orator from Hanover County Virginia, shared his bold feelings with roughly 120 Virginian leaders during the 1775 Virginia Convention in Richmond Virginia. Mr. Henry’s objective was to convince the convention that Britain had already crossed the line in a way that many thought to be incomprehensible to the naked eye. Britain was trying to keep their unclenching grip on the colonies by any means necessar y, such as bringing in large armies of red coats and crowding the waters with

Patrick Henry, born in Virginia in 1736, was a lawyer and great orator, as well as public officer for nearly 30 years, who believed strongly in citizens’ right to bear arms, especially in face of Great Britain’s injustice towards the colonists, and whose speech to the Virginia Convention lead to the persuasion of his delegation and, therefore, participated in the start of the Revolutionary War. (Probst 100) (Colonial Williamsburg Patrick Henry). In his speech, Henry, whose patriotism had lead him to represent his region since 1765, addressed those who did not want to organize a militia for Virginia. (Probst 100) (Henry 102). One of the first and most important arguments Henry makes is that the question of whether or not to organize a

An important point made in Weissert and Weissert concerning Congress and its committee structure is that the majority of the work in Congress is done through committees. They perform the majority of research on issues and possible solutions, get legislation written, re-written and amended, and support it as it moves through Congress and finally gets passed. They are the “workhorses of the legislature” (Weissert and Weissert, 29).

In his famous speech given at the Virginia Convention in 1775, politician and Virginia lawyer, Patrick Henry, addresses the men of the Virginia Assembly about the inevitable war against British “tyranny.” Henry attempts to demonstrate his idea that war with Britain is the only option as well as persuade these men to join him in this fight for National Independence. Henry combines the elements of a gradual shift in tone and rhetorical devices in order to appeal to the members of the Virginia Convention.

A Commentary of “A Documentation of the Constitution Convention From the Eyes of Cotesworth Mifflin” as Told From the Eyes of Sasmit Rahman.

America's republican form of representative government was premised upon the idea of three co-equal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The three branches, in theory, operate independent of one another and serve as check upon one another. It is this structure of this government, the founders believed, that would retard any establishment of monarchial government that the American Revolution was fought upon. However the civil war, and more specifically the Reconstruction period following it tested these principles to the core. While it may be accurate to characterize governmental struggles that defined Reconstruction as ones that were inter-branch, a more detailed and nuanced survey reveals it was borne more so out