The founders of the U.S. were very focused on limiting state power, and therefore created many checks to prevent states from rising above the federal government. This includes Article VI, which states how federal law is the, “Supreme Law of the Land.” This means that any federal law put into legislation, or stated in the Constitution, trumps any state law. Therefore, the states have to obey and respect federal law. This was necessary because this made a statement to each state after the Articles of Confederation. It portrayed that states no longer had the explicit power to operate separately from the federal government, but were rather joining into a Union under one law.
Article II of the Articles of Confederation stated that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” It is not possible for the national government to be in power if each state had their own independence, it was creating the thirteen countries of America, and was not united. Therefore the first part of the Preamble and the entire American Constitution addresses this problem and sets guidelines for a national government in order,... ... middle of paper ... ...es, Shelley, Schmidt 71). The framers of the Constitution finally were able to protect the rights of every present and future American, by creating a government by the people, for the people. The current Congress as not done a just part of following through with the Preamble and the provisions it has. Congressmen often try and create legislation that either conflicts with The Constitution, or has already been solved by The Constitution.
This was roughly ten years since the Articles of Confederation was ... ... middle of paper ... ... also had an amendment section where people had the right to change something in the document. This was what got the Constitution ratified. If the Articles of Confederation was strong enough for our country, our Founding Fathers would never have proposed the Constitution to the thirteen states. The Articles were a good start for our country, but the Constitution was going to be what kept our country together for the future. In the preamble of the Constitution, it is stated, “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”.
...Furthermore, by offering a little more of its power to the world, the US would appear to bind its hands and encourage cooperation in future operations. The US will not be the world’s strongest power forever, and it would be wise to invest some of its power today in strong norms and international laws that future countries, like China for example, would be bound to follow in the future. The UN is “a theatre of realpolitik where members (the powerful ones, in particular) pursue their own interests.” Over the past sixty years of its existence, it has remained the same picture of the world that it reflected in 1945, but the world has drifted away from this picture. For the UN to regain its effectiveness, especially after the war in Iraq, it must reform. The true test of President Roosevelt’s vision for global peace and security is whether change is possible today.
In other words, don’t bite the hand that feeds. To summarize, our nation’s government should not just remember it, but fully rely upon the precedents set by the Constitution of the United States. Most importantly of all, it is the supreme law of the land. This document also describes in detail the duties and requirements of each of the three branches of government. Along with that, the Bill of Rights – which tells us every one of our basic constitutional rights – is a significant part of it.
This essay will trace how the court in conjunction with national courts used this Article to develop the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy, and how it expanded the use of such doctrines to law created under the Treaty which neither explicitly or impliedly warranted their ascription. The doctrines thus mentioned attributed to the Treaty, characteristics more in line... ... middle of paper ... ...ommunity Law' (1983) 8 ELRev. 155  Case 36/74,  ECR 455  Case 6/64,  ECR 585  This is also the opinion of Mancini, 'The Making of a Constitution for Europe', Common Market Law Review, vol. 26, 1989, p600  Craig and de Burca, 1998, EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials p. 259  loc. Cit.
It would not, because after being successful for such a long time period, there is no reason for that change to occur now or in the near future. Bibliography: • Great Issues in American History (Richard Hofstadter) • http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ • http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html • http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers • http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/09/house-passes-energy-bill-lifts.html
Article 44 reinforces article 42 and 43 by establishing the violation of those two articles will be considered attempting to disturb world peace and that necessary action will be taken. The purpose of preventing military buildup along the Rhine River was initially supposed to keep Germany from being able to invade anyone in Western Europe. After all Germany was the aggravator that caused World War I to break out, and the Allies were hoping to prevent future
By remaining neutral, the U.S. was able to delay entering such a controversial war. In conclusion, the United States' neutrality policy in World War One gradually slipped away. With many controversies surrounding international law and Germany's inability to comply with their Sussex Pledge, the neutral position gradually disappeared. The U.S. began to see just cause for entering the war on the British side. They could only hope that this war would be "the war to end war."
It also, somewhat, forced neutral countries to side with the U.S. because it threatened that if any country would aid one of the Axis countries then that country would no longer be given aid packages from the United States. A second policy imposed by Roosevelt was the "moral embargo" of July 1938. This banned neutral countries from exporting Planes and equipment to countries who engaged in the bombing of civilians. This made the U.S. look like the good guys because they were protecting the innocent people who were being killed just because the lived in a different country. By imposing these policies, the U.S. was disallowing the economic growth of the Axis countries and forcing Them to support themselves, as long as they were against the Allies.