Why Codified Constitutions do not hinder effective decision-making
This essay did mention the role of a codified constitution earlier in the definition section, and what was mentioned was, that a codified constitution does not only create constraints and limitations for the government of the day, but it also is a framework and guideline for how politics should be conducted. This guideline serves as a mechanism of stability and clarity for the work of a government. As Keith Whittington puts it “Constitutionalism is the constraining of government in order to better effectuate the fundamental principles of the political regime.” (Whittington, Keith p. 282) Thus it allows the political bodies to focus on important issues. An example where the
…show more content…
This paragraph argues why a codified constitution and an independent supreme court bolsters effective decision-making. Since the Supreme Court judges are protected by their security of tenure, they can act fiercely against the executives and legislators when the constitution is compromised. Brown vs. Broad of education (1954) or Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) are clear examples of that a codified constitution is more effective in protection civil rights, even though their action may be unpopular in society. Supreme Courts have the capability to bring justice in society decades before the legislators or executives are prepared or mature enough. (Heywood, Andrew, p. 347) The question is now, would these examples be possible if a codified constitution did not exist? Likely no, as only a codified constitution with respect for the separation of powers breeds an independent Supreme Court. The ability to take effective decisions when everybody is against it in order to protect civil rights can be considered as effective decision-making. To sum these three arguments up, it is obvious that a codified constitution does not hinder effective decision-making, but instead promotes it through stability, clarity, scrutinization and the independence of the Supreme …show more content…
It is important to understand that these people clearly interpret effective as how fast the process is, and not as how good the output of the process is. This essay made its understanding of ‘effective’ clear in the definition section, and the arguments presented are based on that understanding of the word. Indeed there is no universal definition of the word. Some would give an example of a unexpected and major nature catastrophe which need a imminent reaction from the political bodies, and they would argue that if the parliament and PM was from the same party, the response would be much faster, and thereby more effective than if two different parties with two different understanding of the problem should agree on how to handle the situation. To counter this argument, codified constitution would likely have some mechanism that would be activated in an emergency. An example could be that the executive branch can call a ‘state of emergency’ giving the branch extensive powers to handle the given situation. (Heywood, Andrew, p.
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States’ budding government, now independent from Great Britain, acted under a dysfunctional constitution called the Articles of Confederation. Although this constitution kept the new nation running, there were still flaws that needed to be fixed. The Articles of Confederation lacked a developed executive or judicial branch and a method for the main government to collect taxes from state governments, according to the background essay of the DBQ Packet. An assembly of fifty-five men eventually gathered for a Constitutional Convention in order to write a new constitution that would better satisfy the people’s needs. The trouble of creating another constitution lied behind creating a document
The absence of a codified constitution raises numerous questions. The main one being,
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.
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
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 its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
Within the Constitution, there are many features that are absolutely vital to the success of not only the longevity but success of the government it established. Certain features prevent one aspect of government becoming tyrannical in its power, and some establish the role of constituent states in policy making. While each of these is different, each with a similar role, each must be examined for the reasoning behind their addition to the Constitution. These specific additions are checks and balances, the separation of power, and Federalism.
On further analysis, most of the issues within the document were due to vast cultural, racial, and economic lifestyles that our country did and will continue to support, as unintentional as it may be. This document lessened some of those issues and attempted to accommodate the requests of all states. However, Elitist framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
Constitution is a necessary feature as it defines how power is disseminated within the government and establishes the rights of the citizens and the laws and rules for the country. In order to be successful, a country’s should reflect and satisfy every citizen’s needs and interests.
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.