The Principles Of The Founding Fathers

In September 1787, a well written document called the U.S. Constitution was being created by our founding fathers, like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others, and was ratified on 1791 in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution to was established because our founding fathers wanted to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, which says the Preamble, for everyone. The Preamble is a statement that is the introduction to the Constitution and was written to explain the purpose of the Constitution. The seven principles of the

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

Richard Hofstadter, in the Chapter one, “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism,” of his book, “The American Political Tradition,” expresses his ideas of the conflicts that the Founding Fathers of US may have had when they created the Constitution of United States. Right from the beginning of the Chapter, Hofstadter starts with a quote from Horace White that the Constitution of United States “assumes that the natural state of mankind is state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.” It is no wonder that Hofstadter, who understood Founding Father’s pain, used such quote. In Hofstadter’s view, the Founding Fathers, torn between democracy and monarchy, the two extremities, set out to create a government in which both could be applied and satisfy both the mobs and the elites of society.

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.

Examining theses documents it is clear that the Founding fathers wanted to make sure people defend their rights. Not only that they also believed that the people should know that it is their right and duty to protect their God given rights. As written in the document the framers thought it was important for the armed citizens to be “well regulated" so they are ready to form militias that would not form threat to their fellow citizens, but help insure peace and provide common defense. If the Founders did not believe that Congress would abuse our liberties, they would not have provided those protections. If it were not for the founding fathers believing that government would abuse their liberties, they would not have mentioned the right to bear

Why did the founding fathers create a constitution based on the ideas of separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and the bill of rights?

The failure of the Founding Fathers to clarify their view of slavery in the constitution is also a cause of the Civil War. The issue of slavery was never clearly settled by the Founding Fathers, which lead to many arguments over the next decades (“Origins of the American Civil War”, 2005). In 1787 when the U.S Constitution was written, the interests of slave owners could not be ignored so, although slaves could not vote, white Southerners made the case that they should be allowed to as they contributed largely to the nation’s wealth. Therefore, the Constitution allowed them to be citizens and vote, but only counted them as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation in Congress. The clause allowed the South to have a larger role in the

In June of 1915, the United States is fighting World War One in Europe, while women, including Anna Howard Shaw, continue to fight for suffrage rights at home. As the war rages on, women commit to their suffrage movements by giving speeches and marching in parades. On June 21, Shaw persuasively speaks to the people of New York at an equal suffrage campaign as they prepare to vote on a law concerning women’s suffrage rights. She intends to give evidence to her listeners and persuade them to support the women of New York and eventually all of the women in America, to vote. Shaw uses “The Fundamental Principles of a Republic” to prove the true purpose of the women 's suffrage movement, expose the illogical arguments of her opposition, and to convince all of her listeners (the male voters of New York) to vote for women’s right to vote through logical and rational arguments.

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

For too long, citizens of our nation, have exemplified their beliefs without once questioning their morals. Negaunee High School students discussing their disgust in gay rights, giving only the argument of ¨I just don't like it.¨ On a political level; Trump proposing to keep all muslims out of the U.S. An entire religion and its people completely barricaded due to the idea of a man who has a lack of intelligence in all departments, as well as self morality. I'm sorry, but nope. Such things are worth our concern every day of the week, but to call something your moral right while having no true argument to back it up evaporates the strength of the word.

In the USA and in each of the fifty states, the most basic fundamental is a constitution, which is a relatively simple document and is the self-designated supreme law of the land. As the supreme law of the land, Constitutional Law texts are generally divided into two parts. The first part is about the allocation of powers. This entails two basic principles of American Constitution:separation of powers and division of powers. The former one discusses the interaction among the three constituent elements of national goverment, while the latter one refers to the extent of power possessing by the federal goverment and specification of states' power. Both of the two principles function under one

I realize you cannot legislate morality. I agree with that 100 percent. Yes, saying things like "Thou shall be moral" is foolish, but other things can be done. We have to get back to our roots and become more civil and moral. Throughout recent history our society has continually loosened its moral bonds until we have arrived at the 'everything goes' attitudes of today. This loosening simply has to be reversed. Let me say that this will be a difficult task, but our society MUST put common sense and civility forefront of today's efforts nationwide. It will be harder to fight then any war. We must have an awakening or things will continue to go downhill. Would you agree on that?

Rather than basing morality on what is legal, it seems more reasonable to try to make the law accord with what is moral. We do not want to have laws that would require us to do something immoral, but it is not clear that we want laws always requiring us to act morally. This is because there may be some areas of life which we regard as private, which are simply none of the government's business. For example, we may regard lying as immoral, but that does not mean that we would want there to be a law to enforce honesty and to punish us for lying. Of course there are many immoral things that we do want punished by law, such as killing, stealing, and raping.

To best understand any system of government, it is important to examine its origins. In the American system, the Constitution is held up as the ultimate document on how government functions in America. However, the writers of the Constitution had very different ideas about how government was to function ideally. These ideas formed two distinct camps of ideology: federalism and republicanism. The federalists were primarily concerned with how the collective was to function. In their eyes, every citizen had a responsibility to the state, the institution that expresses the will of the collective in a democracy. Standing counter to this ideology lay republicanism. Republicanism contained within it the spirit of American individualism. The individual was far more important than the state for a republican. For them, the role of the state was to protect individual rights, which it must not infringe upon. Both these competing philosophies express themselves in the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its original form. How does federalism relate to republicanism in the context of the original Constitution of the United States of America?

There are many principles of government, including Individual Rights. Individual Rights is a principle of government that means citizens have certain rights without getting removed. The Bill of Rights has many amendments, including the first, which is the right to have freedom of speech or protest.