The Issue Of Constitutional Conservatives Essay

Each member of the group is expected to post 2 similarities on the Group's homepage discussion board.

“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

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.

Members fail to communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another, and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of others. People make incorrect assumptions about consensus. Based on inaccurate perceptions and assumptions, members make a collective decision that leads to action. It is in the action that it becomes apparent that the decision is contrary to individual desires. Members experience frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction with the organization. Often this leads to the forming of sub-groups that take combative or blaming positions toward each other.

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

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

Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they

It keeps the Supreme Court from attesting its will over the watchful blend of institutional game plans that are accused of making arrangement, each responsible in different approaches to the people.Fifth, bolstered by late research, originalism comports with the comprehension of what our Constitution was to be by the general population who framed and sanctioned that record. It avows that the Constitution is a sound and interrelated archive, with unpretentious equalizations fused all through. 6th, originalism, legitimately sought after, is not come about arranged, though much nonoriginalist composing is patently so. On the off chance that proof exhibits that the Framers comprehended the business control, for instance, to be more extensive than we may wish, then the originalist morally should acknowledge the

Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. . . . The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government. . . .

During the antebellum period, the Constitution had become a source of sectional discord between the North and the South. As it had once been framed as an instrument of national unity, the Constitution had developed different interpretations that provided the validity for ideas in both the North and South. The largest problem with the Constitution at this point, were the unaddressed issues that the Constitution never mentions. Different interpretations lead to different opinions whether something was legal. If the Constitution didn’t mention something, was it legal because it never said it wasn’t legal, or was it illegal because it was unconstitutional? The tensions between the groups of people who had differing ideas about the Constitution

When the Articles of Confederation failed, our new country needed a new system of government. Why not leave it up to the Committee of Detail? John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, Oliver Ellsworth, and James Wilson were responsible for the first draft of our nation’s constitution. The Committee of Style included William Samuel Johnson, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, and Rufus King. These men were responsible for revising the first draft into what now sits behind glass in Washington D.C.

The United States Constitution is heralded as one of the most significant documents of today’s modern age, though ratification of the draft proposed at the Constitutional Convention became an object of opposition with individual challenges in each colony. The Federalist Papers, a series of essays authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the penname “Publius” to defend the Constitution, are historically viewed as a cornerstone for the ratification of the document. The purpose of the collection at time of writing, however, was to argue for ratification in New York State. The actual influence of the essays in the state of New York is uncertain, and this conclusion can be drawn for several reasons. The Federalist Papers were not widely published throughout the colonies, and even after publication, two-thirds of the delegates in New York opposed ratification. The amount of time taken during the New York convention to come to the decision of ratification also shows the Papers did not have a decisive effect, as few were swayed by the arguments presented by the Papers and hence, its authors, leading to the belief that yet another factor had a larger influence on ratification.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

| In Massachusetts Bay, men who owned property could go to a town meeting and vote.

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.