Richard Eugene 's Case Against The Government Essay

On July 3rd, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the thirteen United States of America from Great Britain. Determined to unify the thirteen colonies, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. Although the articles did not prevent the United States from winning independence, the innate flaws of the articles became apparent in the years following the revolution. The problems of the weak, purely legislative national government became too prevalent for agents of the revolution, such as James Madison and George Washington. Madison and Washington were strong supporters of a federal, or national, constitution, and on June 21, 1788, congress ratified the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, violated the “Revolutionary Ideology” and the will of the American people.

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

1. Members of the Catholic or non-Trinitarians would be excluded from toleration under Maryland Law.

Charles Beard’s suggested that the Constitution was a document that was only created to protect the framer’s wealth. Beard believed that the reason why the rich framers wanted to protect against majority rule was to prevent the majority to overthrow the rich. Beard did manage to fit most of the framers under “rich” categories such as lawyers, landowners, and merchants. But, he failed to realize that the framers limited majority rule to protect the rights of minorities, also.

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

Charles Beard lived in a time when a vast majority of politicians and economists considered the views of the founding fathers to be infallible. In fact, many people nowadays still believe that to be the case. Beard, however, held a different opinion in regards to their writing of the Constitution. Whereas most people believe that it was written entirely due to the pressing issues concerning the economic state and unity of the country, Beard believed that it was at least in part due to those same politician’s selfish economic interests since all of them were wealthy men. He argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutionthat the way the Constitution’s system of power and representation “were devices for keeping power in the hands of the rich” [1]. He makes an interesting case in his highly controversial book, but one

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

In 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America worked together to identify the best way to elect the President (Patterson, 2013). The ideas suggested varied and ranged from selection by members of congress chosen by lottery, to a popular vote of the people. By the end of the Convention the matter had yet to be settled as the framers fore saw that many of the suggestions were prone to corruption, error, and were very chaotic. The issue was passed down to the Committee on Postponed Matters, who in turn created the system that is used today and is commonly known as Electoral College (Kazin, 2011). The Electoral College was outlined by the Committee to up hold the views of the founding fathers, who were the framers of the Constitution.

The entire trial was a sham, extremely corrupt due to jury manipulation from the defendant. The jury was allowed to go home to deliberate, giving them time to be threatened, and create a biased opinion from family, friends, media, ect. Also in the court, the judge had suppressed both the wire tape recordings and the lie detector test, throwing away crucial evidence. Not to mention that the only survivor of the

The Constitution was created so one person or group wasn’t able to get too much power. At first, the Articles of Confederation was made. The Articles of Confederation was not working because the central government didn’t have enough power to protect the nation. The Constitution was made in order to hold the states together and the people together, and make sure the government doesn’t gain too much power. The Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” (Federalism Paper #47). The Constitution guards against tyranny by separation of powers, creating federalism, and having checks and balances.

In the readings by Edmund S. Morgan the problems of the colonists are summed up and able to be understood by everyone who picks up the book. It lists in detail what went on to provoke and then what went on to fix issues in question.

After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the United States Government was reorganized under the Constitution. This gave the federal government far more power than did the Articles of Confederation, which invested power within the states. Basically, the Constitution created three branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative) which would work together to run the government. To make sure that there was an equal balance of power among the branches, a system of checks and balances was devised so that each branch could limit the power of the others. It is important to note that "the doctrine of separation of powers is not established by any constitutional provision [but] rather it emerges from he framers'

In a trial, all the attorneys must present their opening statements. The actual trial began in early 1986. Their opening statements consist of the attorneys describing how they’re going to present their rationale. The plaintiffs’ attorneys made their opening statements favor their clients and make their defendants look like big companies that did something terrible and that they needed to be punished for it. The defendants opening statements involved them saying that they had no involvement in the deaths of these

According to Antonin Scalia there are two types of approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalist and living. Which approach do you believe the Court should take? Why? How does this approach affect the policymaking process?

     John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks