The Persecution Of Constitutional Rights In Federalist 78 By Alexander Hamilton

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

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

In the Federalist Papers No. 78 Publius asserts that the need for the judiciary has been well established and focuses instead on what he considered the key concerns raised by those against ratifying the constitution. These concerns were how Supreme Court justices would be chosen, how long a justice would remain in office, more specifically if lifetime appointments were appropriate and the division of authority between the different courts and their relationship to each other. While I would agree there has always been a clear understanding in America of the need for an objective arbitrator with a keen knowledge of the law to settle disputes and also a belief in the right to a trial in front of a jury of one’s peers. I am not sure if that core understanding translated into an automatic acceptance of the Supreme Court. It is fair however to determine that laws without a body to interpret them would make a functional government almost impossible. A law is not actionable until the application has been teased out through trial and error. The writers of the constitution or any law could not anticipate every dynamic and therefore could not write laws detailed enough to stand alone.

What use is a government without absolute sovereignty? In The Federalist No. 15 Alexander Hamilton argues that the Articles of Confederation has left the federal government powerless, ineffective, and on a certain path towards anarchy and destruction. The root cause of these problems, as well as the future prospects for the nation, arise from a federal government which is devoid of any true sovereignty. Hamilton invokes a Hobbesian framework to advocate for an absolute sovereign due to the dangers and instability posed by allowing many independent states to operate independently. Hamilton argues that states are motivated by their own selfish interest and have banded together to oppose a strong federal government. However the main concern is not with the extent of

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 United States commerce has deteriorated and there is a lack of public and private confidence.

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

From the start of creating this treaty the founding fathers were greatly split into two camps. The Federalist led by Hamilton were seen as pro-British supporters and the antifederalist were being led by Thomas Jefferson. (Milestones: 1784–1800 - Office of the Historian) This treaty was increasingly becoming a partisan issue that was plaguing our young nation. Though the Federalist were being considered pro-British Jay himself a Huguenot was not completely pro-British. As Combs says, “Yet Jay’s dislike of France did not make him pro-British at this time. His attempts to mold an anti-British alliance with Spain is ample evidence of that” (Combs 18) He was not completely pro-British though many were making him out to be. The founding fathers had

Hamilton advocates that the constitution should not have a Bill of Rights. The reason that he states that is not necessary is because he states that is already in the constitution. But the main reason he advocates to not have a Bill of Rights is because it can be dangerous. He states, “ Affirm, that bill of rights, in the sense and to the extend they are contended for, are not unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous”. The reason that he states that can be dangerous because it can harm others and not be rights for everyone. He also states that, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”. Then he states

The first amendment gives us personal rights. We have the right to speech, expression, and religion. Because of this, American citizens can believe in whatever religion they want. But are all those religions treated equally? If we can believe in whatever religion we want, why do we say “one nation, under God”, in the pledge of allegiance? Does that mean the government is biased, and keeps religion a factor in settings like court? What about in schools? In the first amendment, we have the freedom of speech and religion. However in schools, students lose the freedom of speech, but not religion, even though they are in the same amendment. What about in modern society? Are all religions seen equally through the eyes of everyday people, or have stereotypes changed the first amendment?

The United States Constitution partially betrayed many promises of the Declaration of Independence. The declaration says “all men are created equal” however it took 189 years for African American to vote. I’m not sure about you, but 189 years is not giving equality or liberty to the people. In the Constitution it states “ The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states”. Once again this is failure to keep the promise the Declaration and Constitution made. It shows hypocrisy because you can’t say one thing and do another. When it says people in “ the several states” this implies everyone of every ethnicity, religion and gender however women and black men were excluded from

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 my opinion, Alexander Hamilton should be replaced on the $10 bill. The non-advocates of this change are arguing that Hamilton is known as a man who strongly impacted the American Revolution; they are discussing other attributes that consider his face on the bill as an honor as the man who helped “build” America. Although these assertions are substantial reasons, there are women who are widely known for their role in shaping American history. If an enlightened history person observed a bill, he or she could reminisce about hearing stories about the impact that figure had in history. This is not necessarily true for an influential woman who, speaking from personal experience, is not learned about until a person has to take a history course

The Constitution was created in 1787. That was roughly 18th centuries ago, when the constitution was established. You can only envision the changes and growth that occurred over time within our country. Recently, I've read the federalist No. 78 (The judiciary department) written by Alexander Hamilton. I created a research paper based off the excerpt and answered two questions that was asked of me. I elaborated on Hamilton's views on the government, judicial system. I also provided an educational theory on how Hamilton would perceive the government judicial branch position of power this current era. It's astonishing how a position of power can drastically change over time. Overall, Hamilton believed the judicial system is the weakest branch of the government. He believed their position is overpowered by the executive and the legislative branch. Today the dialog of discussion would be on his insight on the government system in his era and I’ll also be providing a theory on how he would feel about today’s judicial branch of government in the 21st-century.

Madison and Hamilton,170 and before them, Locke and Hobbes,171 and even before them, the Scriptures, make clear that God himself said, “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,”172 and that man will seek to achieve his interests at the expense of his fellow man within society.173 Still, man is rational, and the men of the Enlightenment thought that man was capable of governing himself through rational thought and inherent understanding of natural law.174 The rule of law and positive law support the operation of liberal Democracy (majority rule under the rule of law with protections for individual rights) and the ability for man to govern himself without kings. As Reinhold Niebuhr