President Of The United States Constitution

Many children grow up being told by their parents, “You can be anything you want to be when you grow up.” Some children dream to be princesses, firefighters, or, if they’re brave enough, President of the United States. Someday these kids will grow up to realize there are limitations, formal and informal, on who run for President. The formal requirements are “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States” (US Const. art. II sec. 1). Informal

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

Now that you have reviewed and taken notes on the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution it is time to respond to your writing prompt:

On May 29, 1790, the American Constitution was ratified. According to constitutionality.info, the main purpose for this constitution was to accomplish two things, form a federal government and delegate certain powers to this government. The Constitution exists today mainly due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. According to usconstitution.net, the Articles of Confederation failed due to some major faults.

The US Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. The war for independence had ended and the United States of America was now a sovereign nation. It had a central government which was established by the Articles of Confederation. The ineffectiveness of the government prompted the creation of the US Constitution. About 55 delegates attended the constitutional convention at the Pennsylvania State House, which was the same place where the Declaration of independence had been adopted. For four months, the delegates debated on the powers and structure of the new government. Two camps emerged namely: the federalist and the anti-federalists. Just as the name implies, the federalists were the supporters of the constitution. The

Description: This is the United States Constitution, the founding document of the United States. It established the three branches of government and the powers given to each. It basically set forth the structure necessary to run the country. It was written in 1787, ratified in 1788. It has and is still used everyday in the United States of America.

Daniel Hoover Professor Jack Citron/ Joseph Warren Political Science 1 September 22nd, 2015 The Constitution is not a Democratic Document The U.S. Constitution revolutionized the American political system, and shaped world history by inspiring other states to imitate its protection of civil liberties in the later adopted Bill of Rights, checks and balances between branches within the federal government, and guarantees to state governments. For the purpose of this paper, it is essential to analyze the Constitution in its early form because it established the conditions from which our federal republic has evolved. In addition, the Constitution of December 15th, 1791, the date when the promised Bill of Rights was added, best reflects the intentions

The Constitutional framers would never have believed how much power the President of the United States has obtained to this present day. Based off their work, it seems as if the framers expected Congress to have the vast majority of power. It is true that Congress still has maintained some of their power; yet, as a collective society we tend to place our sole interest on the president and magnify on all his accomplishments and especially on all his losses (sometimes even blaming him for events that are out of his jurisdiction). Nonetheless, the president has gained quite a remarkable amount of power over the years and it is highly noticeable when analyzing differences in the institutions, the policies, and culturally.

Those that founded the constitution intended for a president to be a man of impeccable prestige but not a man with and excessive amount of power. A great amount of people harbored a considerable amount of rear about if their chief executive became too powerful. Over the time of the Progressive Era, US citizens did not only shift their mindset and notion concerning what the national government should do, but also their views about how strong the president should be.

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution states that: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Throughout the course of American history, past Presidents have committed actions that have brought up the discussion and even started the process of impeachment from holding office. In the chapter “Impeachment in the Constitutional Order” by Jeffery K. Tulis, he talks about the differences between the legalistic and political interpretations of impeachment and how to properly use the process in a successful manner. Tulis states “how and why the impeachment process, far from politically irrelevant, is a vital attribute of the theoretical architecture of a well- functioning separation of powers regime” (Tulis 229).

While it was known that Bergdahl was kidnapped by Taliban, some of the things that he said about the United States are quite troubling. For example, the Taliban released a video of Bergdahl saying this, “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools.” This is not only showing disrespect to the United States, but by hearing Bowe Bergdahl make this very profound statement, this clearly shows why he deserves to be charged with Misbehaving before the enemy. Another way to show that Bergdahl deserves to charged with Misbehaving before the enemy, is by looking at the other comment that Bergdahl made. For example, in another video that was released, Bergdahl said this, “The horror that is America is disgusting.” By watching Bergdahl make this statement, this gives another reason on why he deserves to be charged with Misbehaving before the enemy.

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy president, Caroline Fredrickson states that, “When presidents have overstepped the rule of law, history demonstrates how it undermined our core freedoms. We hope that Congress will assert its proper oversight role and demand accountability from the administration. The American people deserve no less from their government. Freedom and liberty must not be trumped by presidential power.” Yet when is the American public’s freedoms have been taken away? In a case like Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, legal procedure took place, questioning these presidents constitutionality, but with president who were never impeached, did they ever overstep their boundaries? Who decides what is

Negotiations are complex, involving mixed motives, and the Bergdahl case is no exception. In the end, Bergdahl was released in exchange for the release of five Guantanamo Bay prisoners convicted of terrorism. The outcome reinforces the idea discussed in class that compromise is a win-win and a lose-lose proposition. In this case, Bergdahl was released safely, but it is now known the U.S. will negotiate for American captives held by extremists. Sceptics believe the perception from this case jeopardizes the safety of very American-civilian and military alike (Thor 2014). White House officials refute this claim, pointing out the U.S. negotiated through the government of Qatar rather than with terrorists (Wallbank and Ratnam 2014).

The United States Constitution is a lot more than a bunch of words we don’t really understand, I mean let’s be real…what do half of these words even mean? Impeachment…judicial review…popular sovereignty…okay Thomas Jefferson, stop messing with our minds! Well, how about I let you know what they mean.

The first inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States took place on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. Like so many Americans I was incredibly excited to see our country taking such a giant leap forward in our attitudes about Race and equality. It didn’t take long to realize that my hopes were going to be dashed and our country was going to in fact experience a “rebirth of racism” that defies imagination.