The Separation Of Powers During The American Constitution

Think of the word tyrant. Now just imagine that there was a simple and easy way to stop him or her. That’s what the constitution has done for the U.S.A. Our Constitution has protected us against tyranny since the day it was drafted. The constitution is an official document that was written in May 1787 in the city of Philadelphia Pennsylvania. The purpose of the constitution is to form a central federal government, to form a separation between federal and state rights, and to give personal liberties to its citizens.

“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

Summary: In Chapter 1, Hudson addresses the distorted views of democracy from modern-day Americans. He explains how separation of power within the government lessens the power of American citizens and ultimately alters the ideology behind a true democracy into what we have today.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

During the 19th century, so known “peculiar institution” of slavery dominated labor systems of the American South, also dominated most production in the US and led to a boost of the economy of the New Republic. By the 1850 's, US had become a country segregated into two regional identities, known as the Slave South and the Free North. While the South maintained a pro-slavery identity that supported and protected the expansion of slavery westward, the North largely held abolitionist views and opposed the slavery’s westward expansion. Until the 1850 's the nation uncertainly balanced the slavery subject between the two opponents. However, the acquisition of the Louisiana territories in 1803 by the Jefferson administration doubled the size of the US and the victory in the Mexican-American War extended the territory to the Pacific which quadrupled the area of the US. Ultimately, the territorial expansion led to the spread of slavery. In this essay, I will describe some of the reasons for the expansion of slavery including its influence in national politics, and consequences such as political debates and crises of 1850’s.

Federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances and the bill of rights are the four main elements that the constitution is made up of. All four of these elements are what made the constitution strong, lasting over two hundred years. Three separate branches were created that had their own specific powers. The government was then given the power to tax and enforce its laws. The structure of how this one document has governed is what makes the constitution unique. The U.S. constitution established Americas national government and fundamental laws. The constitution guaranteed certain basic rights for the citizens that were unheard of at the time. The constitution established the structure of the federal system and distribution of power between state governments. Citizens that live within the borders of the united states had their own protection of rights. Although the constitution can be flawed in some ways, the document is what had created a great nation; however, the constitution created Americas national government and laws, guaranteed rights for the citizens and continues to represent those living today which makes the constitution unique.

Tyranny is shown in many ways. Our founding fathers met in Philadelphia to discuss the many problems within the Articles of Confederation in 1787. After a lengthy discussion and a large debate, they came to a decision. They decided it would be a good idea to throw out the old and put in a new. In other words, they would replace the articles with a new and improved Constitution. This Constitution would solve all other problems and bring up new ways to guard the nation against tyranny. This Constitution would be so grand, that it would give a face to the new era of government. This Constitution would battle tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and balanced power between large and small states.

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

There were several issues that were cause for concern to the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was proposed. These issues were the sole power of taxation, the lack of protection of freedoms, the development of a large military force, the dissolving of the state’s powers, and above all else, the concentration of powers to the central government. It is this last issue that seemed to be of great concern to the Anti-Federalists, and logically so, because all other powers and laws prescribed by the constitution were to be interpreted and implemented by these men. Throughout the Anti-Federalists writings, one of the recurring topics was the fear that because of the centralization of power in the government, it was inevitable that an oppressive form of government rather than a government of the people would soon

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

There are both similarities and differences, when referring to checks and balances and separation of powers. Both have to do with the Government. But separation of powers is a model of government in which different parts of the government are in charge of different tasks; in the United States, these parts are known as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Checks and balances is a means of trying to ensure that these three parts of government stay equal, and that one does not try to take over another.

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. (Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90).Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common jurisdictions.

America's republican form of representative government was premised upon the idea of three co-equal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The three branches, in theory, operate independent of one another and serve as check upon one another. It is this structure of this government, the founders believed, that would retard any establishment of monarchial government that the American Revolution was fought upon. However the civil war, and more specifically the Reconstruction period following it tested these principles to the core. While it may be accurate to characterize governmental struggles that defined Reconstruction as ones that were inter-branch, a more detailed and nuanced survey reveals it was borne more so out

Federalist papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were publish with the pen name “Publius”. They were first written to urge the citizens of New York City to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. This paper will analyze the problem of tyranny of the majority in both society and the government by using Madison’s Federalist Papers No.10 and 51. It will also discuss how the republican government and separation of powers provide remedies.

Ruling a society has taken many forms, be it the the cruel hand of dictator or the frantic shared thoughts of democracy; an organized state can arguably be ruled by only one end of the spectrum. To conceptualize this view, philosophers Schmitt and Arendt present their interpretations on the political. The central thesis to my paper is then, to present both Schmitt’s and Arendt’s concept of the political and discern which is the most viable from of governing. Schmitt’s structure of the political rest in the friend-enemy distinction dictated by the sovereign. Opposite his view is Arendt, who perceives the political existing with the masses so as to ensure happiness exist. In today’s political climate the oscillation between these two views is the masses believe in Arendt’s theory, while in actual practice of power, Schmitt’s view is currently exercised. The political is then argued as either an autocratic regime or a democratic government. Where Arendt agues for the later, it’s feasibility is highly improbable. Schmitt’s concept of the former, though practiced today, is not completely correct but, presents the best form of rule. The order of a state is best ruled by a sovereign so as to allow the country to realize it’s full capabilities.