Essay about Transatlantic Constitutions: Comparing the US and the EU

The constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed (Oxford Dictionaries). The Constitution was written the same place the Declaration of Independence was signed. The constitution was written during the Philadelphia Convention, which is now known as the Constitutional Convention. The constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 presided by George Washington (Standards,B.). There were several failed attempts to create a government and that is why the convention was called. Under America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, that national government was very weak and the states operated like independent countries (The U.S. Constitution, 2016).Without the constitution each states government would not have any type of structure or anything to go by. The Constitution is broken into three branches: Legislative, Executive, and the Judicial Branch (Holzer, Schwester, 1977). In the

The United States Constitution established the nation’s national government and fundamental laws as well as implemented basic rights for all citizens. On September 17,1787, the United States Constitution was created by delegates in the Philadelphia, which allows each branch to uphold different work ethics and to ensure that each branch has equal authority. A written constitution clearly defines the limitation that each government, branches, and citizens can obtain in order to have a democracy world rather than a dictatorship. United States Constitution allows residents to understand their rights and to familiarize themselves with their state and federal government’s laws. It is important to understand that the written constitution does not

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

The US Constitution, written in Philadephia in 1787 by the Founding Fathers was the product of the revolutionary war of independence, with it’s foundations strongly influenced by the works of political theorists such as Montesquieu and Locke. The Founding Fathers favoured a government that prevented any individual or particular group becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, they strongly opposed the notion of excessive government power, seen as the potential threat to individual freedom, wanting to protect minorities as well as the population as a whole, from arbitrary or unjust rule. Consequently, the Founding Fathers outlined main provisions within the US constitution in order to avoid tyranny: the separation of powers, a federal structure of

     The constitution is the document that has framed and shaped the United States from inception. It is the document that is defended by all new presidents and also the document which affords the citizens of the United States freedoms and rights that cannot be removed. In its drafting it shaped the formation of a new country and a new style of governance. It is a ‘bottom up’ as opposed to established ways of government which are ‘top down’. However for all its virtues the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous and there is some debate of the intent of the drafters, did they intend to

The United States Constitution was created in fear of protecting the people that it governed from the government itself. The Framers pursued the Constitution to prevent the government that they had left behind, the Monarchy of England. After the failed Articles of Confederation, they needed a strong, balanced federal government. Leaving tyrannical England where leaders were not held accountable, disparaging towards natural rights, and lack of consent from the people it governs. The Framers were able to cultivate a constitution dedicated towards the people. They believed that consent from the governed was the only way to create legitimate governance. The Framers laid out a Constitution that would provide for a strong, national government

Similarly vital with these balanced governance, is the guideline communicated in the Preamble of the Constitution itself. "We the People… do appoint and build up this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders realized that all real government

The U.S. Constitution states fundamental principles which guide the United States’ Government and its laws. When it was written in 1787, it was the plan that told the commencing country how to form its government.

not to mention that the Constitution was made 225 years ago and has changed from then and is still changing now. It’s very flexible with it’s rules and circumstances. The first reason the constitution is a living breathing document is because of the Elastic Clause. The Elastic CLause was that rules and laws of the constitution can be fluctuated at any given moment in time but only if it is verified by the supreme court upon agreement.

This fresh, new foundation came in the form a document that outlined the way the government would work. Unlike the way Europe was governed before the Enlightenment period, Americans, since they had recently liberated themselves from the British throne, wanted to establish a government in such a way that would prevent tyrannical monarchy. By this time, they still were faced with the challenge of a republican self government. But again, we see the influence of Locke’s ideas from his Treatise, where he proposed that people had the right to establish their own government for their own protection of their natural rights. As a result of this idea, the preamble to the Constitution was created. This section provided analysis as to what the whole Constitution was about; improvement on the current government (to ensure that they are just) and protection for its citizens.

With regards to the claim that the European Parliament is too weak (the second of Weiler's standard version claims), Moravcsik (2002; 2003) emphasises the fact that during the last twenty years, the European Parliament is the institution which have experienced the most reforms, regarding its increase of powers, compare to the Council and the Commission. The latter argument is in fact accurate because ever since the Single European Act (1986), the European Parliament gains more and more power by reforms in every signed Treaty (Moravcsik, 2003, p. 7). Despite that, however, the Parliament is still considered to be weak compared to the other institutions, as it will be analysed later in the essay.

Treaty of Lisbon has provided that Union should uphold the representative democracy and thus, the legislative power is divided between the European Commission (‘the Commission’) which represents the interest of the European Union as a whole, the Council of Ministers (‘the Council’) which represents the Member States’ interests or their citizens and the European Parliament which represents its citizens’ interests. However, only 34% turned out to vote at the last EU election which implied a growing dissent in Europe. The EU is described as “undemocratic from the start”. The gist of the question is whether the EU law-making process is sufficiently democratic. EU’s democratic performance should be judged on the basis of subsidiarity, representativeness, accountability and engagement.

Furthermore these democratic foundations were further “reinforced” with the conditionality’s of membership adopted at the Copenhagen Summit in June 1993, whereby democratic governance and human rights were included in its criteria for membership. Furthermore, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 formally established a Common Foreign and Security Policy which included objectives of which included the development and consolidation of democracy. The EU as Lucarelli argues hence became a strong instrument for the promotion and development of democracy in Europe and but especially in post-communist ones. This Furthermore, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 reaffirmed its strong democratic position through Article 6:

There is a dispute between people who are against the codified constitution and those who are arguing for it during the last two centuries. People who believe that a codified constitution is more suitable for democratic countries have strong points. For example, Heywood (2013) notifies that a codified constitution entrenches major constitutional principles and protects individual liberty. On the other hand, a codified constitution can be considered more rigid and can make it much difficult for the government and society to deem and balance new reality if the circumstances change. This essay is not going to discuss the strength and drawbacks of a codified constitution, but it is going to analyze how both codified and uncodified constitution deal with developed conflicts and unexpected circumstances. Moreover, this essay will examine examples from history and constitutions of such countries as China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Israel. My conclusion will be that it does not matter if the state has a codified or uncodified constitution, because the most important fact is that any constitution should be flexible enough to reflect political realities and respond on changed political circumstances.

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.