Pros And Cons Of Bob Andrews

The Constitution guards against the abuse of power. Having a bill of rights prevents the government from not giving the people

Lastly we move to federal government this is one in which the powers of government is divided between a central government and several local governments. There is a authority superior to both the central and local governments which makes this division of powers on a geographic basis; That division cannot be changed by either the local or national level acting alone. Both levels of government act directly on the people through their own sets of laws, the officials, and agencies. In the United States, for example the National Government has certain powers and the 50 states have others. This division of powers is set out in the Constitution of the United States.

Federalism is a form of government in which the power to make laws and other specific responsibilities are divided across the national, state, and local governments. How that power is divided has been a constant source of conflict as each level has some degree of autonomy. That is, each level has the capacity to carry out some policies without interference from the others. The national government is responsible for things of national common interest such as, national defense and foreign policy, as well as, responsibilities through implied powers that are inferred in the Constitution. The national government also has the power to declare war, coin money, control interstate commerce, borrow money, manage the postal service, and anything else

He starts the chapter by saying that the Constitution at first glance seems like a cold, formal document and it gives no special property qualifications on any office- but if one analyzes the events that lead up to the creation, it paints a different narrative. He then goes on to analyze several different documents and histories from the time period such as the well known Federalist Papers to come to the conclusion that “Enough has been said to show that the concept of the Constitution as a piece of abstract legislation reflecting no group interests and recognizing no economic antagonisms is entirely false. It was an economic document drawn with superb skill by men whose property interests were immediately at stake; and as such it appealed directly and unerringly to identical interests in the country at large”

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

A key concern the federalist’s held since the start of the war with parting from England is that citizens of America could ultimately divided against each other if their voice is not heard with the new form of government that

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia can be summarized as an “abundance of compromises.” Certainly, a constitution based on compromises can’t satisfy everyone, thus it led to confusion and disagreement on the future of the United States. The economic development of the young nation was fiercely debated, for the most part, from two strikingly different sides. While Alexander Hamilton pursued the betterment of society, indicated by his investment and envision of a pro-industry economy, Thomas Jefferson cared for individuals more than the country as a whole, revealed by his vision of a more agrarian economy. Even though both realities came at the expense of human dignity, Thomas Jefferson’s economic vision, embodied by the greater importance of raw cotton, threatened human dignity to an extent that Hamilton’s outlook, confirmed by the industrial revolution, barely scathed.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

In 1787, the Constitution of the United States was just written on September 17th. During this time, the common man was still under the power of the Articles of Confederation, a weak document that loosely connected the 13 former colonies. Although the Articles didn’t give the United States of America the strong centralized power that it needed, opposers to the new Constitution would argue that the Constitution took away the rights of the common man and gave that power, that the individual once had, to the federal government. Although this statement is correct, the federal government’s newly given power was used to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens and create a powerful government in the hopes that it would benefit

The entire American Government is based in the belief that all human beings are born with certain rights. People do not receive their rights from the Government; its function is actually to guard the rights we already have. Citizens are protected by the first amendment, which prohibits government from acting against anyone's rights.

“Centinel”, the pseudonym for Samuel Bryan, in 1787, argues against the three branches of government system proposed in the Constitution. He believes that this system of “checks and balances” is too complicated, hides corruption and tyranny, and infringes on citizen’s liberties. Centinel No. 1 questions the creation of a three government branch system with the intent to persuade states from adopting the Constitution as is. This article, along with other Anti-Federalist articles, stimulated debate from the local to the national levels to better regulate government power.

It is June of 1789. Nearly a year has passed since the ratification of the Constitution. Imagine your children and wife waking you up and asking you what is for dinner. You are not sure what to say because you lost your farm due to paying off debts. This endures and then something tragic transpires. Your youngest child perishes. In the 1780s there were two diverse types of people with dissimilar lifestyles. These encompassed Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the minority of the population at the time and are on behalf of making a stronger unified government by making a new structure of government. Anti-Federalists make up the majority of the population and want to

The rights of the people in America should not be infringed upon because these rights are guaranteed. And if abused, it not only infringes the rights of the people, but also diminishes the moral code of citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the civil rights that have protected people from the government now seem like they are being taken away from the government itself. The government has given itself the privilege to tap our phones, read and scan emails, access bank accounts, invade homes, and detain someone indefinitely. All of this is happening without any prior legal courses of action or our knowledge. This right to privacy, a fundamental liberty that is implied by the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution, continues to be infringed upon by the government.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

depending on the federal government to control state disputes. “Federalism, as it is understood in its most basic form, creates a multilevel government that permits the national and various state