Case 1 Some of the advantages for the federal government establishing a national bank is that it would allow them a place to store their government funds, issue currency and collect taxes. States felt threatened by a national bank because it would take the local bank 's business by competing with them.The state also thought the people inside the national bank were corrupt, and that the federal government was exerting too much power over them by attempting to curtail the state practice of issuing more paper money than they were able to redeem on demand. Yes the United States government has the authority to establish a national bank because that clause allowed them to do what is necessary and proper, and congress needed a way to carry out their …show more content…
The government twisted that phrase saying that it didn 't violate that amendment when in reality most of the time the separate areas/facilities of colored people were never equal in compared to what the whites …show more content…
The argument I would make that flag burning threatens to cause violence and should be illegal is that there are radical patriotic Americas that would become offended because of the troops fighting for our country and that the flag symbolizes our nation and therefore disrespecting the nation.The argument that I would make and that I personally agree with is that we should protect flag burning because it is our freedom of expression and speech to disagree with the government or show dislike of it. Also the government shouldn 't force its citizens to show unity by not being able to burn the flag because then we aren 't expressing our opinions and the nation would become a dictatorship. Making it illegal to burn the flag is the equivalent of how Kim Jong-un forces his citizens to worship
This bank held government money and controlled the economy by making it easier for local banks to borrow money from it to loan it to manufacturers and factories. As the idea arose the cabinet, Jefferson protested that such a bank was unconstitutional because it favored the north over the south since the bank did not loan money to farmers for land expansions. Being true as it is, the bank drastically boosted our economy and had a great future for our nation. Since it was unconstitutional, a compromise said that the bank would only be funded for 20 years. So as soon as Andrew Jackson was elected, he destroyed the bank. In response to this, our nation suddenly falls into a major depression. No one had jobs and the economy was dying. This showed the brilliance of the national bank and how much it helped our economy. Adding onto this, the bank began the formation of the Federalist and Democratic
69. The Bank proved to be very unpopular among western land speculators and farmers, especially after the Panic of 1819 because it was one of the major contributors to inflation. It held federal tax receipts and regulated the amount of money circulating in the economy. Some people felt that that the Bank, and its particular president, had too much power to restrict the potentially profitable business dealings of smaller banks.
Throughout history, segregation has always been a part of United States history. This is showed through the relationships between the blacks and whites, the whites had a master-slave relationship and the blacks had a slave-master relationship. And this is also true after the civil war, when the blacks attained rights! Even though they had obtained rights the whites were always one step above them and lead superiority over them continuously. This is true in the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson”. The Court case ruled that blacks and whites had to have separate facilities and it was only constitutional if the facilities were equal. this means that they also constituted that this was not a violation of the 13th and 14th amendment because they weren 't considered slaves and had “equal” facilities even though they were separate. Even if the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson” set the precedent that separate but equal was correct, I would disagree with that precedent, because they interpreted
The first one asked whether the Bank was constitutional or not, and the second one asked if “Maryland’s law unconstitutionally interfered with congressional powers” (“McCulloch v. Maryland,” Oyez). The Second Bank of the United States was decided to be constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper Clause that is found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This clause grants Congress the power to “pass laws that are necessary and proper for the execution of its enumerated powers” (McBride). A few enumerated powers given to Congress include regulating interstate commerce, borrowing money, and collecting taxes. Since Congress possess these powers, the creation of the Bank was related, necessary, and proper. Next, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution states that the laws of the United States “trump” any state laws that conflict with them. Chief Justice Marshall stated that Maryland was unconstitutionally undermining the superior laws of the United States and the supreme law of the land. Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that the political authority of the Union belongs to only the people of the United States and not the individual states. The people created, and are governed by, the Constitution and they give the U.S. Government its power. Maryland’s tax “acted as a levy against all the people in the United States by a state accountable to only some of the people.” Basically, Maryland’s tax violated constitutional sovereignty by trying to give political authority to the State instead of the
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
The issue of whether or not America should have a National Bank is one that is debated throughout the whole beginning stages of the modern United States governmental system. In the 1830-1840’s two major differences in opinion over the National Bank can be seen by the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig parties. The Jacksonian Democrats did not want a National Bank for many reasons. One main reason was the distrust in banks instilled in Andrew Jackson because his land was taken away. Another reason is that the creation of a National Bank would make it more powerful than...
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law.
Thomas Jefferson was an opponent of the adoption of the original Constitution, believing like many Anti-Federalists, that it gave the Federal government too much power, while depriving powers to the states. Jefferson was also adamant in opposing the emergence of a national bank. He believed that this would deprive the states of power to an even greater extent while further empowering the Federalists and the federal government. Additionally, the Anti-Federalists had adopted a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and that all powers of the federal government were not legitimate unless specifically stated. Going by this interpretation would mean that a national bank would not be able to be established, as that was not a right of the federal government specifically stated in the Constitution. Although a national bank did emerge, the Anti-Federalists did make other accomplishments that coincided with their agendas. One of the most major successes of the Anti-Federalists was passing ten amendments to the Constitution. The first amendments were collectively known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments gave rights that Federalists believed were implied in the original Constitution, but Anti-Federalists wanted them specifically written in, as to avoid any possible ambiguity as to what fundamental
Another federal legislation that was passed into law during the period was the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, focused its energies on creating a new banking system with twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, and each of whom were owned by member banks in its district. Also, all of the national banks automatically were members while state banks could join if they wished.
One such issue was that of the National debt and creating a National Bank. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed that Congress should establish a national bank, in which private investors could buy stock, could print paper money, and keep government finances safe. Washington signed the bill establishing a national bank and started a strong foundation for a thriving economy and a stable currency.
After the first War for Independence, The United States was approximately $52 million in debt. Due to having such bad financial problems, the United States created a national Bank to create one unified currency, to take away all state debts, and to issue loans to the people to promote growth. This National Bank was created by Alexander Hamilton who was a Federalist, and once Jefferson came to be the President, he continued the idea of the national bank because it was helping to reduce the national debt. The primary reason for the National Bank being a representation of a Federalist idea was because since it was issuing loans to people it was able to promote industrial growth which was one of the main goals of the Federalist party. From Jefferson continuing the use of the National Bank thru his presidency he demonstrates his need to continue a loose constructionist idea.
In the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, members of the Supreme Court believed this decision for “separate but equal” facilities did not violate any laws. For example, Justice B. Brown, known for writing the majority opinion on the case, writes the ruling “neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment”. He goes on to write that the separation does not stamp “the colored race with a badge of inferiority.”
Just because the amendments were in place and the government had the provisions to enforce them, the government did not. It could also be argued that just because one political party forced the amendments in to Congress, does not mean that the states have to enforce and protect the rights of all citizens. There is also the argument that the citizens actually took power away from the government because they did not agree with the new amendments. After all, there is no government if the citizens choose to ignore the laws. Either way it is looked at, for a long period of time, the states, government, and citizens got away with treating minorities how they want to treat them, which of course was to keep them
Before the Reconstruction Era, rich whites were able to violate the rights of blacks by not classifying them as humans. With this classification, blacks were not protected by the Constitution because they were not considered “men” and the constitution clearly states, “all men are created equally.” Once Reconstruction began, three amendments were also added to the Constitution banning slavery, adding equal protection under the law for all citizens, and allowing due process.... ... middle of paper ...
In 1962, Milton Friedman wrote the essay “Should There Be An Independent Central Bank?” Since then, half a century has passed. Nowadays, many countries in the world have their independent central banks. But the discussion about whether central banks should be independent does not end. This paper will try to 1) provide the arguments on both pros and cons whether central banks should be independent; 2) provides evidence about the relationship between central bank independence and inflation in developed countries, developing countries and transition countries.