Pros And Cons Of Constitutional Conventions

These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a Prime Minister.

The Constitutional Convention was the gathering point of the fifty-six delegates from the twelve states where the latest Constitution was written. This historical event took place at the Annapolis Convention in Philadelphia. The Constitutional Convention met between May and September of 1787. They argued on almost everything, some delegates argued over the powers that the president should have, and other argued about the number of representatives each state should have. To settle these problems, compromises were proposed. The most important compromises that led to the creation and ratification of the Constitution of the United States were: The Great Compromise, The Three-Fifths Compromise, The Slave Trade Compromise, and The Massachusetts Compromise.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 marked the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. The ratification argument led to disagreements between the Federalists, who wanted to approve the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed the document. The latter believed that the new system forced by the Constitution failed to protect the individual rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

The purpose of this convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation and make them better. Every state was represented by sending delegates except for Rhode Island. They decided that it would be a better idea to draft a whole new constitution, so that’s what they did. Their plan was to construct a stronger federal government that included the three branches executive, legislative and judicial branch. They also agreed on a system of checks and balances to make sure that no individual branch had an excessive amount of power. Some other issues that were discussed during the Constitutional Convention were state representation and

Constitution ~ a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

This meeting is referred to as the Constitutional Convention. George Washington was chosen to preside over the meeting. After much debate, The Virginia Plan was drafted. Virginia delegates wanted a bicameral legislative branch. They argued that a strong national government would collect taxes and enforce laws.

The Constitutional Convention was the result of a reaction against the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention was held to deal with the problems under the Articles of Confederation as well as to seek a solution to these weaknesses. Problems spread throughout numerous areas, from problems in the Southwest to the inability to maintain law and order.

The Constitutional Convention is a new plan for the government. It is a government people have to follow. it is important people follow it otherwise something could happen to them. the Constitutional Convention is a new plan in place of the Articles Confederation. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton where to create the Constitutional Convention. George Washington was elected by the delegates to preside over the Constitutional Convention.

From May 25 to September 17, 1787, The Constitutional Convention, also we call Philadelphia Convention, the Federal Convention, or the Grand Convention at Philadelphia, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The biggest issue in the convention was how to elect the president. The constitutional convention had four different kinds of plan: the president was elected by US congress, governors, citizens or electoral college.

Two options available are respectively referred to as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment and a constitutional convention process. A legislatively referred constitutional amendment is a proposed change, or amendment that appears on the state’s ballot because at least 3/5 of the entire house Legislature decided it should be placed as a ballot measure before the constituencies. The latter option, a constitutional convention process, is a assembly set about to recommend amendments to the United States Constitution. A constitutional convention must be met with three terms: a majority, two thirds of both houses, who wish for state parliament to put a convention question on the ballot, the majority of the voters must also confirm that it is their intentions as well and they are indeed inclined to hold a convention, and lastly if there are proposed changes or revisions that are desired they must then be placed upon the statewide ballot; subject to a vote of the people for ratification. It should be furthermore noted that a revision or amendment by convention of the people of the state of North Carolina can be called to propose a new or revised constitution, or more simply to just propose changes to the existing

The UK is divided into parliamentary constituencies of broadly equal population (decided by the Boundaries Commission), each of which elects a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons. The leader of the party with the largest number of MPs is invited by the monarch to form a government, and becomes the Prime Minister. The leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.

PM doesn’t need legislative approval of Cabinet choices, as long as they are MPs; president needs Senate approval. Choice wise the president has more liberty in that he can choose any he please, not only does the PM have to choose an MP, they are also dependent on party pressures (a-c Heffernan, 2005:65).

There is no need for the courts to enforce constitutional conventions. Conventions are non-legal rules governing the workings of the constitutions. This means that if you breach this, there will be moral or political condemnation. They are used to govern the relationship between the Crown and Government, legislature and the judiciary. They can be linked to the principles set out in the Bill of Rights 1689, particularly when looking at the relationship between the Crown and Parliament. Currently, there are virtually no issues with our current system as it works well. Constitutional conventions fall within the scope of political practices meaning that if the courts were to become enforcers of constitutional conventions, it would affect this whole

The parliamentary system, unlike the American presidential system, is recognizable by a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Prime Minister, who is the chief executive, may be elected to the legislature in the same way that all other members are elected. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the majority of votes to the legislature-either de facto, or in some cases through an election held by the legislature. The Prime Minister appoints Cabinet Ministers. However, unlike in the presidential system, these members are typically themselves legislature

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that