Webster 's Speech On Congress Addressing The Proposition Of Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster

In what is considered the first anti-federalist paper, “Brutus” writes: “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.” This clash of ideas, opinions and lifestyles, he argued, did not lend itself to any overarching federal government. He continues: “The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other” (Anti-Federalist 1). The Federal Farmer adds: “Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be

Since these rights are given by God, no man has the moral right to seize them from another man. Following this line of thought, Hamilton further extrapolates that any civil government must be established via a voluntary compact, containing self restraining limits so as to protect the natural rights of those ruled, which should be the objective of every civil government. Any government that usurps these boundaries thus violates our natural rights and can, “Confer no obligation to obedience” (Hamilton, 97). Hamilton once again stresses the import of the fact that the sole purpose of human law is to maintain our absolute rights. Masterfully, Hamilton turns around and uses similar solid evidences to examine Parliament. Arguing avidly that Parliament does not protect colonists’ rights, he presents that Parliament is both assumptive in its authority over its citizens without consent, and also takes away their security because they have no voluntary participation in the making of laws. As such, uncontrolled legislators are unbound, and a government that no longer falls in line with the natural laws delegitimizes itself. Hamilton shows that America’s Congress was created in opposition to such a government. In his closing, he contends with his opponent by once again headlining the fact that laws and government which conflict with natural rights (such as Parliament) can not be considered truly

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

The Constitution provided many ways to prevent tyranny such as popular sovereignty, federalism, etc., but this paper focuses on the two most important; checks and balances and separation of powers. Separation of Powers was a brilliant idea, because it gave each branch of the government certain powers that the other branches didn’t have (Document D), and the other branches couldn’t take that power away from each other.

He saw the inability of Congress to enforce decisions that were plainly in its area, the inability of the Confederation to achieve unanimous agreement on amendments favored by the majority of states and attempts by several of the individual republics to secure by separate legislation ends that called imperatively for common action (Robertson). He asked could uniformity be actually secured within that relatively small but just as important place where nearly everyone agreed that uniformity was needed. His answer was no. Although new grants of power were required in order to perfect the definition of decisions that belonged to the government’s hands, the most complete authority would still prove insignificant unless the general government was actually obeyed. Constitutional reform, to be effective, would require two further changes: the people, from whom all authority derived, would have to ratify the work of the Convention; and the general government would have to be empowered with a right to veto all state laws. The sovereign people were the only ones who could remake the state as well as the federal constitutions, commanding the cooperation of the local governments where general interests were involved. The local legislation, formerly from the power of the Britain, might make it possible for the confederation government to guard its limited preserve against encroachments by the states. As well as to restrain the states from discomforting and taking advantage of each other and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by paper money which favor the interest of the majority. Thus, James Madison carefully distinguished this defensive power from the positive responsibilities the central government would have, and he insisted that he favored it because it struck him as the minimal connection of the “local sovereignties consistent with a lasting union” (Robertson). He had long ago concluded that the union would

From early developments of America’s government to the Jacksonian Era, tension concerning states rights and rights of the national government was prevalent. This tension was ultimately revealed through the issue of nullification and the contrasting opinions of Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun. Similar to Calhoun, I believe that states should have the right of nullification because it protects states’ well-being, gives them a voice, and helps keep a balance between the power of the national government and the states. The relationship between the states and the national government evolved from being separate under the Articles of Confederation, intertwined under the constitution, and unclear in the Jacksonian Era.

Articles I, II, and III of the Unites States Constitution outline the importance of dividing government into 3 branches, this system was designed by our forefathers to serve the people. With any division of power obstacles are bound to arise, usually when attempting to enact important legislation. Since the US Constitution was written to the present day there has been conflicts between the supporters of a strong federal government and campaigners of states’ rights. This paper will address these three aspects associated with the first three articles of the United States Constitution.

On January 26, 1830, the government was put to the test by the people of South Carolina. The representatives of South Carolina fought to not have the Tariff of 1828 because it would have hurt the farmers of South Carolina financially. The Tariff of 1828 would have raised the price on their cost of planting for the advantage of the north. Daniel Webster led the argument, in which he wholeheartedly believed that the states right to reject the Tariff. Webster made some effective arguments. One that stood out the most is the claim that the citizens are in charge of the government. The Government and constitution would not have even existed if it were not for the people to establish and raise it, therefore the states have the right to reject anything

“Humbly invoking the blessing of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas do ordain and establish this Constitution”—those are the opening words of the great Texas Constitution with which Texans authorize the state government to govern them. In history, whenever it becomes necessary and proper for a central power, either at the local or national level, to be ordained to govern a mass population a constitution is regarded as an emphatic “pre-requisite to statehood” (Tushnet, 1) . For centuries constitutions have been drafted by nations all over the world functioning as a social contract between the government and the governed and as a supreme law by which everyone within the nation’s borders would have to answer to. Constitutions not only

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.

Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

The school of thought that adheres to the belief that a centralized form of government is preferable has argued the states’ power needs to be checked. They have argued that there are issues that require a uniform set of laws and allowing states to regulate this area will lead to uncertainty in the law. Additionally, in order to curb the power of the states, the federal government, although limited in its enumerated power, has found creative ways of doing of curbing the power of the states. It has employed the use of the supremacy clause (in U.S. Const. art VI cl. 2) in declaring state law unconstitutional when it conflicts with federal law (see, Martin v Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)). Congress has also sought to regulate several areas

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.

INTRODUCTION: According to Politics in States and Communities (Dye and MacManus, 2009), government in the constitutional form is primarily about conflict resolution. It exists to find solutions or at least to set parameters for implementing solutions within strict limitations. At the state and local levels (which operate together under state authority), governments have the freedom to address issues and conflicts very directly through the governance policies and restrictions they put in place. For the federal government, however, decisions are tied more directly to what the US Constitution says or what it has been interpreted to mean, and it is very difficult to change.