`` Six Amendments : How And Why We Should Change The Constitution

Article VI, Clause 2 (National Supremacy Clause) – The Federal Government, in expressing any of the powers

Describe the Supremacy Clause and explain what happens when there is a direct conflict between federal and state law.

Every year, Congress proposes a ton of amendments. Some are reasonable, and some of them are just crazy. The rate of proposed amendments throughout the 1990s is absurd. This roller coaster of a rate went all the way up from 214 in 1990 to only 60 proposes amendments in 1999. So far in the beginning of the 21st century, the country stays steady in the proposing department at around the 70-80 rang according to senate.gov. Needless to say, in 1789, the people proposed 10,431 amendments. But, of course, these insane numbers doesn’t necessary mean anything if they are not passed.

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Stated respectively, or to the

The system of checks and balances represents the foundation for the American democracy as it ensures that no one branch of the American government can become too powerful. During the Jackson administration, an important ruling from the Supreme Court was released in the historic case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case, two missionaries were appealing their arrest for protesting the state of Georgia’s legal encroachment on Cherokee law and land (Tindall 344). Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Cherokee nation was “a distinct political community” (Marshall qtd. in Tindall 344) and therefore not subject to Georgia law. Marshall’s ordered that Worcester, one of the arrested missionaries, must be released from Georgia prison, however, Georgia refused to release him. President Jackson, who wanted to decrease the federal bureaucracy and emphasize state’s power, decided to not enforce the Supreme Court’s verdict by stating that “he had no authority to intervene in Georgia” (Tindall 345). This, of course, is untrue as the federal government represents the “supreme law of the land” as dictated by the US constitution (United States of America). Jackson, however, refuses to take this up this responsibility and neglects his constitutional rights and duties and

Essentially, the southern politicians reaffirm their dependence on the Constitution as the central tradition that must be adhered to, and they censure the Supreme Court’s infringements on rights held to the states and to the general population, in opposition to the new law and to the Constitution. For example, the southern politicians had a convincing argument and a valid point since they recognize the thought processes of those states which have pronounced the goal to oppose constrained mix by any legal means, yet they speak to the states and individuals who are not specifically influenced by these choices to consider the protected standards required against on issues key to them might be the casualties of legal

The tall, thin, aggressive Chief Justice John Marshall continues to dominate our high tribunal. His recent decision- perhaps the most famous- strengthen the power of the federal government at the state's expense. The remarkable case of McCulloch v. Maryland involved an attempt by the State of Maryland to destroy a branch of the Bank of the United States by enforcing a tax on its notes. Marshall, on behalf of the court, declared the bank constitutional. At the same time, he bolstered federal authority and slapped at state infringements, denying the right of Maryland to tax the bank. Chief Marshall affirmed: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy, that a power to create implies a power to

The sixth amendment is the necessary bill in the constitution because it plays a significant in the day to day activities of the law enforcement in the united state. It helps individuals feels a sense of belonging during a trial. The sixth amendment is deemed necessary because it guarantees the right related to criminal prosecutions in a federal court. The bill also protects individuals against the government power, the freedom of choice against a speedy and fair trial, a public trial by an impartial jury. The bill provides counsel defense program to the indigent client. During this process judges assign attorney to represent an indigent client who is unable to afford or pays for a lawyer during a trial. Help reduce the stress and tension

On December 15, 1791 ten of the amendments were passed to the U.S.A constitution, known as Bill Of Rights. These amendments were written by the fathers of U.S.A to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens. One of the amendments that I see people really want to make a change is the second amendment which means ,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."What is my position on this topic? I have lived in the United States for ten years. For ten years I have seen a lot things that went around me. Especially criminals. I don't want to make any changes in the second amendment. And I will say why? First of all I do agree, people should protect

When one looks at federalism throughout the United States, do most think that it is still relevant to this day? Some think that it has remained consistent since the passing of the Constitution. But some people in today’s society think that the government authority that is supposed to be shared between the national and local governments is starting to be overpowered by federal law and local and state governments are not getting the rights promised to them years ago when the Constitution was passed. The reality in today’s society is that apart from military affairs and international diplomacy, most “national” laws, policies, and programs are shaped, administered, or funded in whole or in part through a complex, and often contentious system of federal-state relations. The arguments of the antifederalists are beginning to come through, that even though states still have some flexibility in implementing policies, it is overall the federal government that has the final say. The federal government has taken over many places in which used to be governed over by that states, such as social welfare policy, education, health care, and a minimum wage (Wilson, DiIulio, Bose, 2011). A big debate in recent years over whether it should be regulated by federal or state law is the debate over gun control throughout the United States. The debate over gun control in the United States today relates to the debate over federalism because of different cases in recent history relating to gun

Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.

In this article, author, Nathan P. Richard, writes about how federalism, which was once thought of as only a conservative philosophy has been rebirthed, but this time it’s being taunted by liberals. Federalism has grown from just states’ rights to more of a political revolution; it has transformed from believing in the idea that the states have practically equal power to federal government to a new idea of pushing states’ rights whenever it is politically convenient for your cause. Richard writes about how the idea of Federalism is moving from away from doing what is right for the nation and moving towards doing what is best for your political cause at that moment. The article begins to describe how overtly liberal Representative Barney Frank

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions