Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

The Constitution Essay, Research Paper

The Fundamental law

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Right from the beginning of it? s creative activity the fundamental law

of the United States has been a rickety papers. The really footing

for it being there was in fact illegal. The narrative of American

political relations starts with the Declaration of Independence. This

papers was brightly written by Thomas Jefferson and

compacted all of the great thoughts of enlightenment into one short

easy to read paper. The declaration stated all of the ideals the

new American state would endeavor for. A fundamental law was needed

as a manner in which to carry through those ends. The articles of

Confederacy were created as that fundamental law. However, they were

weak, because no province wanted to give away any of their powers,

and so the articles finally failed. That is when the modern

twenty-four hours fundamental law was get downing to organize. The Articles of

Confederate states stated that in order to alter any portion of the

papers all 13 provinces must hold to the alteration. Therefor

a meeting was called so that they could amend the weakness

articles. However, representatives from two of the provinces did

non demo up. Even though non all provinces were represented the

meeting started and the first ballot was to wholly throw away the

Articles of Confederacy. The fundamental law wasn? T formed yet and

it was already a blemished papers. Because non all provinces were

represented when the articles required it, the fundamental law was

an illegal papers. The delegates working on the fundamental law

new that they needed a stronger papers, because the articles

proved excessively weak, but it still needed to delight all of the provinces.

This was impossible. So what ended up occurrence was the new

ducocument became more and more vague. The lone manner to make a

papers that would go through was to do a papers which didn? T

truly work out any jobs but do each province believe that there

jobs would be fixed. This was accomplished by doing it so

that it was excessively obscure to pique anybody but you could read into

it. This made for a papers that would be earnestly flawed

because people would be able to read into it excessively much. It could

non work. The Fundamental law of the United States of America was

excessively obscure to work.

The manner the fundamental law was written it gave power to four

parts: the Congress, the executive subdivision, the judicial subdivision,

and the provinces. Because it was so obscure it did non truly specify

which powers went where ( with a few exclusions ) . It left excessively

much room to read into and take power off from other subdivisions

and into your subdivision to give yourself more power. The

fundamental law leaves all unmentioned powers to the provinces,

stand foring the people. This seems like that would be allot of

power, and it would be, except that the other three subdivisions

would read into there powers and finally take about all

powers so that the staying powers were small and

unconsiquencial. Throughout the history of the fundamental law the

three subdivisions of the authorities would clip and clip once more spread out

their powers. Each clip taking more powers off from the provinces

and unbalance the system so that the original ideals set would be

destroyed.

Congress was split into two houses: the senate and the

house of representatives. This was one of the ways which the

fundamental law gave an unreal power to the people. The house is

the lone portion of the authorities which is straight elected by the

people. This made the people think they were acquiring a direct

state in the authorities, but that wasn? T true because everything

done in the house would hold to travel through the senate which was

run by the elite. throughout the old ages Congress has invariably

expanded their powers through a wide reading of the

fundamental law and with every illustration they have abused the system

by unbalancing powers and taking rights off from the people.

The biggest thing they used to spread out their powers was a

little subdivision of the fundamental law which they expanded to give

them any power the saw proper of themselves to hold. Article 1

subdivision 8 clause 18 is called the elastic clause. This clause

provinces that Congress can do any Torahs necessary and proper to

transport out their powers. This is one of the large grounds the

fundamental law can non work. this clause is merely excessively obscure to

let any apprehension of what Congress? s powers are. Congress

would take this clause to the extreme. It does state the can merely

do Torahs which would complement their listed powers. However,

they took it to intend they could make anything necessary to transport

out their? occupation, ? which of coarse is anything in their involvement,

or? in the involvement of America. ?

The first major illustration of their abusement of this clause is

the Bank of the United States. In no topographic point does the fundamental law

state that the federal authorities has any right, or power, to put

up a concern. Therefor that power would be left for the provinces.

This did non go on, nevertheless. Congress, ? in their space

wisdom? , deemed it necessary and proper to make a bank to

stabilise the economic system. Right from the get downing powers were

being stripped from the provinces. It seems the authorities made for

the people was now working against them because the fundamental law

was excessively obscure to protect them.

In another case Congress used the necessary and proper

clause to go through the Alien and Sedition Act. These Torahs forbade

people to talk out against the authorities. Doesn? t the first

amendment protect peoples right to liberate address? But since

Congress thought it was necessary and proper to hold a jurisprudence like

this they were allowed to because that? s the manner they interpreted

the fundamental law. Yet another right of the people taken away

because the fundamental law was excessively obscure.

Even though the fundamental laws was supposed to assist the

authorities achieve the ideals set by the new state it turned out

to be one of the greatest jobs the state faced, and it was

responsible for one of the worst wars in American history, the

civil war. This job foremost started with the nullification

crisis. Because the fundamental law was so obscure that jobs

erupted over where the powers were to travel, the three subdivisions of

the federal authorities began to derive as many powers as they

perchance could. This goes against the whole thought of American

ideals. The provinces were the 1s who were acquiring their rights

taken from them through wide reading of the fundamental law,

when the fundamental law was supposed to protect them. this cased

the provinces to state that they had the right to declare something

the authorities had done unconstitutional. It was in fact their

right because it was a power non mentioned in the fundamental law

and therefor left for the provinces. It was foremost brought up in the

signifier of the Virginia and Kentucky declarations which were in

protest to the foreigner and sedition act. they were denied the

P >

right so. It so came up once more in the Hayne, Webster argument

in respects to a duty imposed which favored the northern provinces,

and their right was denied so excessively. The federal authorities had

won out and from so on the federal authorities would take more

powers so of all time intended. The fundamental law had failed. It had

allow things run rampantly. It decidedly did non carry through it? s occupation to

attempt to maintain the powers balanced and protect the peoples rights.

The wideness of the fundamental law created jobs within

the executive subdivision excessively. In some instances the fundamental law was

blatantly disregarded. Right from the Washington? s foremost

presidential term there was statement about how the fundamental law would be

interpreted. During his presidential term two people in his cabinet

would alter how the fundamental law would work for the remainder of it? s

life. Those two people were Alexander Hamilton and Thomas

Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton realized that the fundamental law was

written excessively mistily to be taken earnestly. His point of view was

that the authorities could read into it because that was the lone

manner things could acquire done. Jefferson realized that this would

deprive the people of their rights and in that manner destroy the

ideals of America. He believed the fundamental law should be read

purely. The lone job with this was that it did non

specifically say anything. It was a catch 20 two, and that

is the whole ground the fundamental law is a failure. No affair how

it is interpreted it can non carry through anything towards the

ends of America. Thomas Jefferson? s manner seemed to be the

fairest to the people and he finally became the president.

However, this proved the fundamental law can non work for the

people. This is because when he became president he was all for

rigorous reading which would protect the peoples rights.

However, he realized he had no power to acquire things done. When he

wanted to buy land he found out there was no manner the

authorities could which is a immense defect because it would greatly

aid America if it could. He ended up purchasing the land utilizing a

wide reading of the fundamental law and traveling against his

ain values. He realized the fundamental law was excessively obscure to work.

This International Relations and Security Network? t the lone clip the executive subdivision has abused the

fundamental law. When Andrew Jackson was president he wholly

disregarded it turn outing it had no existent power to maintain the subdivisions

in cheque. The first job that came up was because of the

Native Americans. The Cherokee were being forced to travel but

they thought they did non hold to under the Torahs of the united

provinces, so they took it to tribunal. They finally won and were

granted the right to maintain their lands. However President Jackson

had other programs. He forced the Cherokee to travel against the

tribunal opinion. The fundamental law gave no power to forestall against

this. Yet another job with the vagueness of the

fundamental law. Another job arose during his presidential term.

Jackson did non like the bank of the united provinces because it

brought the rich elite closer to the power. The purposes of

this were good but he destroyed the bank which had already been

proved constitutional. This incident brought up the inquiry of

who has the right to state something is unconstitutional, because

in one of the fundamental laws many defects it does non advert this

most of import power so everybody was claiming to posses it.

The Judicial Branch was in no manner excluded from this race

for power. Although it had no existent power to straight tamper in

the other subdivisions it used tribunal instances to put case in points for how

things would be conducted in the hereafter and therefor pull power

to themselves.

The first and most of import instance they used to acquire power was

Marbury v. Madison. In this historical instance Judicial reappraisal was

formed which gave the tribunal the power to declare an act of

congress unconstitutional. Marbury was one of the midnight Judgess

appointed by John Adams as he was go forthing office. Adams was

seeking to pack the tribunals with people from his political party

because they would function for life. Marbury ne’er got his pares

and when the following president found it he refused to present it.

Marbury sued for his occupation and it went to the supreme tribunal. The

judiciary act would hold forced the new president to present the

documents. The tribunals agreed. John Marshall, the main justness,

said that Marbury had every right to his occupation, but that Congress

had created powers non stated in the fundamental law. Because of

this, Marbury did non acquire his occupation. Marshal so went on to put

up Judicial reappraisal. By making this, nevertheless, the tribunal did

something they themselves had merely said was unconstitutional.

The fundamental law was supposed to be able to work out these jobs

but it was excessively obscure.

Another tribunal instance, McCulloch v. Maryland, gave even more

power to congress straight taking it off from the provinces. In

this instance the domination clause was protected and allow Congress utilize

a wide reading of it to take power. When the 2nd bank

of the united provinces was formed Maryland instituted a revenue enhancement to seek

and forbid the bank from being profitable. They said they had

the right to command at that place local concern but the federal

authorities argued the domination clause protected them. The

Supreme Court decided that the domination clause protected things

set by the authorities from the provinces. The American Peoples were

losing power by springs and bounds. This instance made the federal

authorities supreme over the provinces. The fundamental law had failed

to give the provinces any power to look into the federal authorities.

The chief ideal set by the new state was to maintain as much power as

possible with the provinces, and now the provinces had no power.

Time and clip once more in each subdivision of the authorities the

fundamental law was read into and powers were created, turn outing the

fundamental law was excessively obscure to work. Congress used a twosome of

unfastened ended clauses to make any power they wanted for

themselves. The executive subdivision proved it was excessively obscure to be

able to give any existent power, and to that terminal could non maintain the

subdivisions in cheque. And, the tribunals used their instance determination to

rob people of their rights. The Fundamental law was made in a manner

where it was doomed to neglect. It did non truly state anything so

there was edge to be jobs, and it has proved true clip and

clip once more.

Hall, Kermit L. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the

United States. New York Oxford University Press, 1992.

Witt, Elder. The Supreme Court A to Z. Congressional Quarterly

Inc. Washington DC, 1993.

Bacon, Donald C. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress.

Simon & A ; Schusks. New York, 1995.

Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme

Court IV. Excellent Books. California, 1994.

Danzer, Gerald A. The Americans. McDougal Littell. Evanston

IL, 1998.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Harold!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out