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. In so doing they were consciously echoing the words of the Great Charter which King John had sealed 561 years before, wherein he had undertaken that no tax may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent.
Similarly, the federal constitution which the newly independent states drew up in 1787 was to a large extent the formal statement of rights and liberties already won in Britain.
However, while England had for centuries been intent on limiting the power of the absolute monarchy, American constitution-writers now focused on limiting the power and potential danger of the new "absolute ruler" - Congress, and the power of federal government institutions generally. This they sought to achieve not only through constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights, but also through the celebrated "checks and balances" whereby two Houses, and the President as Executive, exercise discipline and restraint over one another. The judiciary was also placed to act as a restrictive force; indeed the US Supreme Court has traditionally seen itself as the ultimate discipline upon government power, and champion of the citizen against government excesses.
The supremacy of the constitution over any and all branches of government was seen by America's Founders as the essential assurance of orderly and disciplined government, a view clearly described by Mr Hugo LaFayette Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1937-1971.
"The form of government which was ordained and established in 1789 contains certain unique features which reflected the Framers' fear of arbitrary government and which clearly indicate an intention absolutely to limit what Congress could do.
"The first of these features is that our Constitution is written in a single document. Such constitutions are familiar today and it is not always remembered that our country was the first to have one. Certainly one purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. An all-powerful government that can act as it pleases wants no such constitution - unless to fool the people. England had no written constitution and this once proved a source of tyranny, as our ancestors well knew. Jefferson said about this departure from the English type of Government: Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
When the colonies were being formed, many colonists came from England to escape the restrictions placed upon them by the crown. Britain had laws for regulating trade and collecting taxes, but they were generally not enforced. The colonists had gotten used to being able to govern themselves. However, Britain sooned changed it’s colonial policy because of the piling debt due to four wars the British got into with the French and the Spanish. The most notable of these, the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), had immediate effects on the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain, leading to the concept of no taxation without representation becoming the motivating force for the American revolutionary movement and a great symbol for democracy amongst the colonies, as Britain tried to tighten their hold on the colonies through various acts and measures.
You little tyrant king george off with your head.Since the Americans had a bad experience with one person having too much power they made a constitution that guarded against tyranny by, dividing power, making the branches able to check or limit each other, and dividing power between big and little states.
In this political philosophy the colonies had originally made a charter with the king who set a custom that he was to provide for the defense of the colonially while each colony maintained the right to legislative self-rule. Jefferson would state, “the addition of new states to the British Empire has produced an addition of new, and sometimes opposite interests. It is now therefore, the great office of his majesty to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might bear injuriously on the right and interest of another” (A Warning to the King: Thomas Jefferson, “A Summary View of the Rights of British-America”, Green, p. 234). In other words, for Americans to preserve the true ancient British constitution, it was vital to establish that parliament did not have authority over them, because they could never be required to give up actual popular consent or governance in the British Parliament. Thomas Hutchinson stated this idea clear, “The king might retain the executive power and also his share of the legislative without any abridgement of our rights as Englishmen, the Parliament could not retain their legislative power without depriving them of those rights, for after removal they could no longer be represented, and their sovereign, sensible of this charter or commissions made provision in every colon for legislature
During the American Revolution, the Americans aspired to keep their government as far away from the resemblance of the British government as possible. Politics were changing in a time where the monarchs ruled the American people, that had to be put to a stop. States’ rights were being advocated into the new United States government as much as humanly possible. James Madison was a helper in writing the Federalist papers along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. Madison writes “you must first enable the government to control the governed” (Doc I), which demonstrates the authority that the Federalists initially wanted
Self-governance was a primary idea of the settlers in North America. Once English settlers began to come to the new world in the 1600s, they knew they needed to have their own freedom for themselves, after all that is why they left Great Britain in many cases. Self-governance is most notable in the earliest form of the Mayflower Compact in 1620 for Virginia. Great Britain began to deteriorate the self-governing nature of the colonies in the mid-1700s through various acts it deemed to be necessary. The enforcement of these acts caused the colonists to be unhappy with the actions Great Britain was taking and so the phrase “taxation without representation is tyranny” came.
After the Great War for Empire, the British parliament began carrying out taxes on the colonists to help pay for the war. It was not long from the war that salutary neglect was brought on the colonies for an amount of time that gave the colonists a sense of independence and identity. A farmer had even wrote once: “Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world” (Doc H). They recognized themselves as different than the British, so when parliament began passing bills to tax without representation there was an outcry of mistreatment. Edmund Burke, a man from parliament, sympathized with the colonists: “Govern America as you govern an English town which happens not to be represented in Parl...
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
People often think that D.I.D. (Dissociative Identity Disorder) is something made up, something that a person is just inventing in order to get attention; that statement couldn’t be more Incorrect. Dissociative Identity Disorder, formally known at Multiple Personality Disorder, is a dissociative disorder, not a personality disorder or a psychosis. D.I.D. is a severe form of dissociation, a mental process which produces a lack of connection in a person’s thoughts, memories, emotion, behavior, or sense of identity. D.I.D. is thought to stem from trauma experienced by the person with the disorder. The dissociative aspect is thought to be a coping mechanism; the person literally dissociates himself or herself from a situation or experience that is too violent, traumatic, or painful to assimilate with his or her conscious self.
Dissociative disorders can affect someone’s memory and make someone forget some of the important things in his or her life suck as their own identity. “When a dissociative identity disorder comes in to a person life it normally can make that person seem very distant and never aware of the other people in their lives.” (Diseases; 1) Which means that this person has absolutely no socials life. This person, when having a traumatic childhood, he or she can establish two or more different sets of personality. As an adult, this person may see an object that triggers the other personalities to come out; meanwhile, attempt to take control over the body.1a. SV; conj. adv, SV.) This other personality can be a different gender and he or she will most likely go by a different name. When this personality is in play the person’s original personality will have no memory of what the other being inside of him or her may have done.
However, there are two major theories that give an understanding in the cause of DID. The Post-Traumatic model of DID suggests that it originates from severe trauma during childhood or adolescence. This trauma can be disorganized attachment, chronic neglect, and abuse (Vissia 2016). These experiences cause the formation of alters within the person as a defense mechanism. The second theory is known as the sociocognitive model, also known as the fantasy model (1). This model suggests that people who are diagnosed with DID are the product of their environment. Meaning, they are influenced by social and cultural factors that create or maintain the disorder. In this model, the person does not know, or think, that they have alters until it is suggested by a professional or another person in the patient’s life. It is at that point, they begin to believe that the do have alters which leads to diagnosis of DID. Unfortunately, the long-term prognosis for DID is not great, regardless of treatment method. However, there are treatment methods that can improve the symptoms. Ultimately, it is possible for alters to fuse, in others words they merge into their host personality. Yet they very rarely become unified
The growing recognition of psychiatric conditions resulting from traumatic influences is a significant mental health issue of the 1990s. Until recently considered rare and mysterious psychiatric curiosities, Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) (until very recently known as Multiple Personality Disorder - MPD) and other Dissociative Disorders (DD) are now understood to be fairly common effects of severe trauma in early childhood, most typically extreme, repeated physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse.
Department of Psychology, of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (n.d.). Sybil isabel dorsett* the most famous case of multiple personality. Retrieved from http://jackiewhiting.net/Psychology/Sybil/Sybil.htm
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.
What is Dissociative Identity Disorder? A proper explanation of DID necessitates a dissection of the name itself. Dissociation is “a mental process, which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity.”1 In other words, there is a disruption in the way in which these usually integrated functions communicate. Daydreaming, highway hypnosis, or “getting lost” in a book or movie are all examples of very mild dissociation.