Many people all around the country probably won’t certainly agree with the author of A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato main idea was that the United State Constitution was outdated and needed to be reform somehow. He believed a change to the Constitution will going to be really hard due to the massive number of traditional political conservatives that the country had. Sabato explain that these conservatives’ people will oppose to the idea of different view of the Constitution by saying “the Constitution is just good as it is”. The conservatives’ support only their views as the Constitution was just fine the way it is, and it was original because that was the intent of the founders in how to interpret the Constitution. …show more content…
Perhaps, he prepared a proposal with twenty-three different points in were the Constitution could be reform. It’s hard to understand why he name this book like this. In my opinion, it does not have much sense to transform something that is perfect and convert it in something more perfect. However this book is based on the author political opinion on respect to the United States Constitution, more like from the democrat party than conservative. In fact, the Constitution as how it’s right now it does not meet the need of the country right now, due to many issues that the nation is facing and because of the constitution said can’t do much. It’s a really good book to read, because it will change the view that we have as citizens, living us with many questions without answer for the
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil
What was Charles Beard’s view of the Constitution? How does that view compare to the traditional secondary school textbook view? Be specific. Beard’s view of the Constitution was that it was made by people in the upper and middle classes in order to create a strong federal government that could be used to their advantage. He stated how this would help them since a strong federal government could be used to force the lower classes to pay more money while the upper classes received power and protection.
The Federal Budget has always been a hot topic of debate; whether funds are being allocated properly or not, but what can not be debated is currently America is in a deficit and in debt. In A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato, Sabato proposes adding an amendment that would require federal expenditures in any given fiscal year to not exceed federal revenues in that same year; unless three-fifths of both houses of the Legislative branch waived the balanced budget requirement. The only other exception would be during recession or war, declared or undeclared, a simple majority in both the Senate and the House could circumvent the balanced budget requirement. The amendment would require any surplus to be spent on repaying the federal debt.
The major theme of the book “Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America?” by Mark I. Sutherland is the courts reaching pat their constitutionally delegated power and assuming a new role as legislators, even legislating in areas that Congress has no power in. Through the collected teachings and speeches contained within the book, Sutherland points out that basic freedoms, such as the freedom from legal restrictions on practicing religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, are currently under attack and have been for quite some time. From legal fallacies like the modern notion of “separation of church and state” to the all-out attack on the Bible in public, this book goes into detail as to what is being done and how it can be stopped. Sutherland
"How Democratic is the American Constitution ?", by political scientist Robert A. Dahl is a short book that questions the ethical and political issues in America 's Constitution and the structure of the United States government. The book consists of a series of abstract lectures composed by Dahl that reflects on how the American Constitution affects modern society. While this short book brings out plentiful knowledge on the American system , it does not go any deeper into those general ideas for it is only about 200 pages. However, it is still a knowledgeable book to introduce the fundamentals of American government and political science and why American citizens should uphold the Constitution. Dahl introduces the book of how the Founding
But yes, I do like this book and would recommend this book to anyone interested in world
The Federalist Papers contains eighty-five essays that were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under their pen name of “Publius.” The Federalist Papers were written to urge the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. The essays were published to the New York newspapers between October 27, 1787 and May 1788. The title was not originally “The Federalist Paper” but just “The Federalist.” Three men that were under the pen name Publius wrote 85 essays and out of three papers, they are generally considered to be one of the most important contributions to the constitution are the Federalist 10, 30, and 51.
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.
After the Revolutionary War had come to an end, there were many challenges the thirteen colonies had to face. There were many economic, poverty, and social problems within the country. American citizens had a difficult time to adjust to the new national problems. It severely impacted them. These problems arose with a weak government established by the Articles of Confederation.
This shows the original intention behind the Convention was not actually to create an entirely new government. It was just that after long examination of the Articles, most found it to be more expedient and pragmatic to create a new form of government (the Constitution). But even after the drafting and acceptance of the constitution, the author still contends that it was made for the sole purpose of fixing the underlying defects. The authors shows this by saying, “a careful examination of the Constitution… shows that there is nothing in the completed document that did not arise from the effort to correct the specific defects noted” (Farrand 540). This adds together to make the second main argument of the author’s paper, which is that the Constitution was made for the sole purpose to fix the stated defects of the Articles of
DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
Two changes I would make in the constitution both fall into the second article. This is the article concerning the presidential election process and duties. While other articles could of course be modified in some way or another, I find that the two changes I came up with could be agreed with by almost everyone. I tried to make these decision not based on how I feel about politics and my beliefs, but instead I made my decisions based on what is best for everybody. I wanted to put my political affiliation aside for this question because in the grand scheme of things what I will suggest are things that could legitimately be addressed without too much complication.