1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation? How would the history of the United States have been different if the country still operated under the Articles?
The Constitution is a stronger guiding document because it provides the government the ability to rule more efficiently. If gives the governing body a way to support the country financially by creating and changing taxes. The constitution also provides the checks and balances system which prevents any single branch of the government from taking control or assuming too much power, or from abusing their powers.
If we were still under the Articles we would most likely not have the peace and solidation of such a strong nation we have now. The government would not have the right to regulate commerce.
2. The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government - read these articles. What did you learn that you didn't already know about our government?
Section 2 of Article 1 says " and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." I thought a representative had to live in the state, this says otherwise.
I did not know that the amount of compensation for the president cannot be changed during his time in office, that is reassuring.
3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?
It established judicial review. Allowing the Judicial system and supreme court the right to find laws passed unconstitutional and to be abolished.
4. Looking at the United States government today, is it more like what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists envisioned and why?
It is more like the federalist vision. They were in support of the constitution and wanted a separation of state and nation.
I really like the concept of Judicial review as it gives a major check on congress so that it cannot accrue massive power and become unequal to the power of the Judicial or Executive Branch. I also thought that a state representative must come from the state in which they are elected to represent, interesting.
ReplyDeleteI, like you, thought that a representative had to live in the state he/she is representing. This surprised me, due to the fact that how would he/she know what was best for a state in representing it if he/she did not live in that state and interact with the people of that state. I am also glad that judicial review was established for the Supreme Court in order to keep the legislative branch form gaining too much authority in passing laws that could be unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteApparently, I’m not the only one that thought representative were suppose to represent the state they were from. I guess I was wrong. I thought that the representative would have to live in the state to better have an understanding on the views of the people in the state. But I guess that’s not the case here.
ReplyDelete