Although the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers are essential to the establishment of the government, it makes the constitution negative and positive.
In order to secure the rights of everyone, the system of checks and balances is necessary. It is not only for protection from the oppression of society’s rulers but also the injustice of one fraction of society to another. If the governed suspects that the legislative has abused its authority, such as using its powers for personal gains, then by the system of checks and balances, the people are allowed to allocate the legislative into new hands. This is a positive aspect of the constitution because it gives power to the people and not just those in the government. However, not all aspects of the system of checks and balances makes the constitution positive.
Nevertheless, by the system of checks and balances placed in the government, the Framers safeguarded the interests of property against attacks by majorities (Beard). The Framers of the constitution prevented those from the lower class from having an equal dis...
In conclusion this is why tyranny and federalism, separation of power, checks and balances and big and small states all mean that they are important to know also the branches are a big part especially in the separation of
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
In this paper we will discuss the different point of views on the revolutionary war period that lead up the creation of the constitution between Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart. It is true that the constitution as created by the rich, however the rich were more educated than the poor at the time, making them the reliable leaders of the society. This said, the rich might have tweaked the Laws to their slight advantage. Schweikart explains the creation of the constitution in order to fulfil the needs of the population. However Zinn emphasizes the fact that the government is controlled by the elites who benefit the most form the foundation of the constitution.
In 1787 there was a large tension between the elites and the underdogs over debt and tax relief. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia worked to remedy this tension; however, they did so at the expense of the underdog, the indebted, suffering farmer, and for the benefit of the wealthy, who gained from the underdogs’ suffering. How did the delegates manage to design a constitution so biased towards the elite and how exactly did the document benefit the wealthy? Section I examines the interests of the indebted farmers and the wealth. Section II explains how the delegates came to design a constitution that benefited the upper class. Section III Provides examples from the Constitution that show its bias towards the elite and the outcome that was in their benefit.
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The above statement is somewhat mind-boggling. It is something that a revolutionist might have coined over 200 years ago and it leaves much to the imagination. It is about as close to being treasonous as one could get without actually committing the crime. The former Vice-President Albert Gore once stated that "the constitution was a living breathing document, open to change". His statement was quite controversial and it definitely created a stir with the patriot-cult crowd. Why would anyone want to scrap the entire Constitution of the United States of America? Has someone come up with a more impressive document that better signifies what this country is all about?
3. Beard, Charles A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 27 -- 33).
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise. The constitution guarded against tyranny using federalism. [Federalism is the system where the states and central government share power.] [Document A was written by James
Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
Consequently, a government must be in a constant state of self-consciousness, whereas it is continually checking itself to ensure its constitutionality. Thus, the idea of checks and balances would be paramount for a government to remain limited.
The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.