Category: American Constitution

The founding fathers considered various things to be important tools for maintaining freedom. Constitution is one of the tools and this explains why it has been amended over the years. The constitution has remained to be the supreme law of every sovereign nation. The constitution’s vast language is expounded by the principles outlined in the declaration. The founding fathers used the declaration’s principles in the drafting of the new constitution. The Declaration in liaison with the constitution addresses the fundamental political questions that face mankind such as political organization (Adams, & Francis 27). They were developed to serve from the 18th century to the present.

George Washington’s farewell address after the end of his leadership tenure pointed out various things which can be considered as important tools for freedom maintenance. George urges the American citizens to vote for a visionary and trustworthy leader to control the executive government. It is an honor to be chosen a leader by the people and for the people (Parra 26).

A leader ought to be faithful and persevere in their service to the countrymen, amidst dubious vicissitudes. George prays that the citizens will stay in brotherly affection and unity and sacredly maintain the constitution and its use ruled under virtue and wisdom. John Adams letters to various parties reveals his ideas about freedom maintenance tools. John tells Zabdiel that it is morality and religion alone that can establish the principles where freedom can stand firmly (Adams, & Francis 37).

ohn Adams claims that changing rulers only changes tyranny to tyranny and liberty is the virtue that people should hold dearly. John writes to the officers of the first brigade and tells them that people ought to have deep simulation to each other also to the foreign countries. He urges the servicemen to use their position to enhance freedom in the US through military dignity, sincerity, religion and morality. John holds that tyrants should not be tolerated to ensure that freedom is held by the people (Adams, & Francis 59).

Patrick Henry’s statement, ‘Give me Liberty or give me death’ is a representative of people’s cries. People want liberty because liberty goes hand in hand with freedom. Patrick was a great father who considered himself as a patriot who is ready to die for his country to have freedom (Parra 69). The past judges the future and the tyrannical hands of the British parliament and ministry are a threat in the future.

Patrick claims that the petitions of the people have been blocked and their remonstrance have resulted to more insult and violence; their supplications have also been disregarded and the throne has been harsh. Patrick says that hope is minimal and if people want to be free they should fight for freedom and God will make them emerge as victors. Patrick urges the people to be stronger the sooner for the better for attaining freedom before they are totally disarmed by the tyrannies (Parra 143).

It is evident that the founding fathers who include; George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Adams among others had various ideas concerning the important tools of getting and maintaining freedom. The constitution and declaration ensures that the citizens are guarded and have the outlined freedom. John claims that religion and morality ought to be present for freedom to be exercised. John also urges the military to uphold dignity, sincerity and morality in their service to the nation and give the people freedom. Patrick urges citizens to mind their own business and stand against tyrannies. This will give them freedom.

Racism

The issue of citizenship in America, together with voting rights, has been a hot debate over the years. This issue has led to most amendments in the great American constitution. These amendments include the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which have been termed as reconstruction agendas. However, people have misinterpreted these amendments, going contrary to what they advocated. Over generations, people in the country have questioned about their well-being, especially black people and other races.

Main Ideas

A history professor at Colombia University, Eric Foner, in his episode, talks about how the public perceives the idea of reconstruction. He also talks about the constitutional amendments and the power vested to people in changing the country. Foner discusses in his two books, Unfinished Revolution and the Second Founding the concept of American citizenship and the treatment of every citizen. Not so long in the past, blacks and people from other races were unconsidered as American Citizens.

The amendments brought changes in the constitution, where every citizen does self-interpretation, bringing about misunderstandings. Civil war intended to end the idea of racial segregation and slavery, but some states restrained the ambition. The southern states, which are much affected by racism, were among the front runners to resist that idea. The whites believed that black people had no chance to practice voting rights in the country.

Women in American society were considered as a group that had no power and, therefore, also denied their rights, such as voting. Eric says that the legislature and Supreme Court also misunderstood the concept of reconstruction, ending up making decisions that affected society in the long run. If the court could have a broader vision and understanding of these amendments, Eric says things would be good. Many people identify reconstruction as a failure. Eric agrees, but taking a look back at some of its achievements like blacks being allowed to go to schools and having their church, he terms reconstruction as an unfinished revolution.

The 13th amendment of the American constitution looked forward to ending slavery, which had been one of the challenges in the country. Most representatives in the federal government objected to this amendment, including the democrats. States from the southern part were the most affected. Eric’s book, The Second Founding, was written to discuss the issue of slavery, which was much embedded in the American constitution. When criminal laws were introduced, every illegal act was subjected to a felony. People spent years in prison, where those who owned or rented large pieces of land would hire them from the government to work for them. This act signaled that even after the 13th constitutional amendment, slavery did not end, even after the great civil war.

Eric, in his book, also talks about the concept of equality among the citizens of the United States. He states that every citizen should be accorded equal rights be it from any gender. The 14th amendment talks about granting gay people their rights and be treated equally as others. In writing this reform, the concentration was not about gay marriages but granting equal rights to every citizen. This amendment came in trying to cover up the implications made by the previous one, which happened so fast. With the amendment, every citizen is to enjoy equal rights and protection by the law. The original constitution mentioned nothing about equality.

People in the north and south, highly believed that the states were in control of the voting rights. The 15th amendment previously denied women the right to vote. The resolutions suggested that every male American citizen who is 21 years of age should be allowed to participate in voting. Women who were outraged by the idea came out to protect themselves. Immigrants were not allowed to vote like the Chinese who resided in the state of California. This amendment was termed as a negative one as people were restricted from voting due to their race. The American Indians were also denied their identity as people from the land. However, later reviews, granted all people in America, either by birth or migration citizenship, but under various requirements.

Comparison

The first part of this episode talks about how reconstruction worked out and failed. People failed to understand the concept and interpreted it in their ways. The historical experience of blacks and people from other races is also inclusive. Slavery is disclosed, which also is included in the next section. The second part, largely base the argument on the various amendments done in the American constitution. The failure of these reforms and what they advocated. The issue of inequality and voting rights to American citizens is outlined. However, the two parts analyze the issue of racism and how it was accelerated. Both parts talk about the treatment accorded to non-Americans, concerning their rights.

Self-Reflection

Learning this material from a podcast helped to get the direct quotations used by the author. I was able to do a self-interpretation of the provided information. It felt lively listening to this podcast. In my case, I rarely listen to podcasts. Rather I use written materials to get the information I may require. However, learning from a podcast gives more information as it is rare to skip a single element, as compared to a textbook, which is, at times, tiresome. An in-person lecture is much lively since the direct contact is available.

Conclusion

The issue of racism has been in existence since the past. Blacks were treated as a segregated group in society, which saw them being exposed to acts of slavery and being denied access to school. Many whites were against ending slavery, as the amendment proposed. Voting rights were restricted to minority groups, including women. However, every American citizen should be given equal rights to ensure protection by the law.

Throughout history, religion and politics have always been interlaced to a certain extent. Indeed, the first has been an effective way to address the social relationship among the citizens and it had been useful to create a sense of belonging to a particular socio-political culture. This is further emphasized by the fact that most civilizations have had a particular religion that was often both correlated to, as well as supporting the political ideologies of the population. Considering the Egyptians, for example, the head of the church was also the pharaoh of the kingdom. This enabled the ruler to have absolute power both on the political structure of the civilization, as well as on the religious and ideological one. A similar approach has been present in the United Kingdom since 1534 when King Henry VIII rebelled against the papal spiritual rule within British territories. This schism resulted in that the king would not only be the absolute ruler but also the head of the newly founded Ecclesia Anglicana. Nevertheless, with the passing of centuries, a secularisation process started to arise worldwide which caused a schism between the political and religious spheres of power and influence over the citizens. This was legalized, at least in the European continent, during the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, when the major European rulers met to agree upon the end the Thirty Years’ War. The Treaty emphasized the concept of sovereignty, the supreme authority within a territory, and with it the idea that cuius regio, eius religio (whose realm, his religion). As an outcome, the importance of religion in the political life as well as in the policy-making process started to fade, whilst meanwhile, modern nations states started to arise. Nevertheless, this process is still ongoing and, depending upon different factors, religion is either strongly affecting some countries or it ultimately became second to the general will of the citizens.

In the case of the United States of America, “the controversy over mixing religion and politics has not kept religion apart from government”. Indeed, religious groups are present and they participate in a wide variety of political activities, yet they are organized as neither political parties nor political machines. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a certain level of affiliation between a particular religious group and a political party cannot be present. As a consequence, even though the religious beliefs of the elected president would indirectly affect the political ideology of the country, it would not influence the nature of the government itself. The separation of the church to the legal state is even specified in the First Amendment of the American Constitution: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” This had two major outcomes; the first one is that it would grant the freedom of religion from state regulation, yet, being this rule so generic, it does not specify the extent to which it is allowed to interfere with the political culture. Indeed, “religious political movements, religious political parties, organized religious pressure groups, and church lobbying are outside the purview of any constitutional provision”. The only other mention of religion in the American constitution, that vaguely pinpoints this issue, is in article six: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. As a consequence, a Holy Book cannot be used to rectify policy making in the country, yet it didn’t eradicate the presence of political and interest groups that are strongly based on them. These groups have the assigned function of providing their constituents with information regarding the government as well as representing their denominational or interdenominational church bodies before the federal government. These range between the Catholic Church, which has had offices in Washington DC for the last forty years, to various methodists and protestants churches as well as a strong Zionist movement that had influenced the political relation between the US and Israel.

In the 1980s these started two different political movements in the country: the accommodationist and the separatist movements. The first one argues that the government should support and protect the religious heritage of the United States, whilst the other one supports an even stricter separation between the religious and political culture of the country. Studies show that, in the absence of specific issues or policymaking, the population will show a separatist ideology, thus supporting the Jeffersonian “wall of separation”. On the other hand, when a new policy would affect the religious heritage or common beliefs would cause an increase in accommodationist attitude within the shared political culture. However, it is important to notice that, according to the research carried out by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in 1991 and 1998, the majority of the population would not want religious authorities to be elected at the government, 64 and 65 percent respectively, whilst only 17 and 16 percent of the population was favorable. This is further emphasized by research carried out in 1986 and 1994 when 46 and 50 percent of Americans was discontent with the fact that public officials were too close to religion or religious leaders.

Depending on the country, however, religion may occupy a larger portion of the political sphere of the nation. As a consequence, even though in the US the effect it may have is controlled and limited by the constitution, in another country this may not always be the case. One example is Saudi Arabia, that is a totalitarian monarchy that lacks an actual constitution but whose legal system is based upon the Shari’a law and the Islamic Law. The term Shari’a can be translated from Arabic as “the path in which God wishes men to walk” and it is the sum if all Allah’s commandments and the moral and practical outcomes. The Islamic Law, that is the interpretation of the Shari’a into a legal system, shows how religion plays an important role in the political ideology of the countries in which it is practiced. Even though the Shari’a itself does not have a legal basis, to the Muslim it is a form of divine authority, and therefore, it covers a much wider field than most modern legal system. Indeed, it regulates every aspect and detail of a man’s life and his path towards God, the State, and himself. Nevertheless, Vogel identified the presence of a duality within the Saudi’s legal system stating that “In most Islamic states… the legal system his bifurcated: one part is based on man-made, positive law; the other part is Islamic Law… Saudi Arabia also has a dual legal system… the Islamic component of the legal system is fundamental and dominant. The positive law, on the other hand, is subordinate, constitutionally and in scope.” Therefore, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is attempting to harmonize the teachings of Islam with the economic and industrial development. This is achieved by the harmonization fo the duality of its legal system and thereafter by modernizing the Shari’a law, yet maintaining its Islamic principles. Even if this process started relatively recently, it causes and justifies the institutionalization of religion into the government thus making it very different with respect of the US ideology. Indeed, as previously mentioned, in the first amendment of the American Constitution it is specified that no religious test should be used to justify the political choices.

It is important to consider the effect of religion, not only on the political sphere but also when considering the citizen’s perspective of it. Indeed, it is possible to notice another cultural difference between the two countries when analyzing the citizen’s response towards the influence of religion in their daily lives. This concept was analyzed in a survey regarding the state of happiness in Saudi Arabia that conducted by Ipsos, in 2019. The study showed that 55 percent of respondents believed that their religious or spiritual well-being either does or could give them the greatest form of happiness. Similarly, 31 percent of respondents stated this was a source of some happiness. Only 14 percent of the test population went against the trend and answered that religion either does not influence their happiness or that it does so even if to a minor extent. These results strongly differ to those of another study conducted on US soil, that was showing the influence that religion has on the American Life. According to the latter in the year 2000, 58 percent of the population reported that religion was losing influence, 36 percent that it was increasing and 4 percent stated that it didn’t change. In 2018 this values strongly changed, for which 76 percent of the population stated that religion lost influence on American Life, only 21 percent said that it increased, and 1 percent that it remained the same. It is possible to note a correlation between the influence that religion has on the political life, and how it affects the personal life and satisfaction. Indeed, the difference between the popular belief that religion is influential in a country where most of the legal system is based upon the Holy text, against a country where religion and the legal system are not related, is close to 50 percent difference. Indeed in the US it is only 36 percent against the 86 cumulative percentage in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, this raises some question regarding why was there a steady decline of the importance of religion in the US, and if that could happen in Saudi Arabia in the near future.

The influence of religion on the political sphere does not necessarily imply that the laws are more rightful or neither followed through. In order to understand that it is important to consider the rule of Law, that is defined within the report redacted by Statista as: “the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials” and it is ranked in percentages. The indicator is used to understand the extent to which the country’s population has confidence in reliability of legal authorities and police as well as the likelihood of crime and violence to occur. It is important to compare the difference between the two countries when considering its effects in the citizens’ everyday lives. Saudi Arabia is ranked as number 90, with a score that is ranging from 41-60%, according to World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators in 2017. The United States, on the other hand, have a score that is above the 81 percent, consequently placing further up in the world rank. This indicator is also closely related to and representative to the corruption level in the countries, and the efficiency of policies implemented to control corruption levels in the countries. According to the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2018, the United States ranked 21st out of 150, whilst Saudi Arabia was the 44th. This results show how, even though the Shari’a law is based on the Qur’an it is less efficient and perceived as less trustworthy then the American one, that is defined by the constitution as not related to any particular religion nor based on a holy text.

In conclusion, religion still affects the political system of the countries, as it did throughout history. Nevertheless, the extent to which it does so significantly varies depending on the cultural traditions and general will of the citizens of a nation-state. It is possible to notice how in the case of the United States there is a duality between the government and religion, thus separating the two. This however does not imply that the two spheres cannot influence each other, to a certain extent, but it limits the extent to which this can occur through the American Constitution. On the other hand, when considering more in depth Saudi Arabia’s political ideology it is possible to notice how closely related to religion it is. Indeed, the Shari’a Law is the central piece on which the Saudi’s legal system is based upon. Throughout the year new laws have been created and implemented but they are still second to the Islamic Law. Interestingly enough, the less religion is present in the political life, the less people want it to influence it, as shown in the surveys conducted on US soil. On the other hand, when religion is more present people believe that their greatest forms of happiness come from it, on top of everything else. However, the legal system in Saudi Arabia is less efficient and more inclined to corruption than the American counterpart. Even though more studies should be conducted and more countries should be taken into consideration, when considering these two countries it is possible to notice how, the more religion affects the country’s politics then the more inefficient the legal system seems to be. Nevertheless, this research is not taking into consideration the differences that these two countries have regarding the level of development, the economic stability, the external influences these countries may have, and others. As a consequence, this research paper is not enough to state with certainty whether that’s the case, but it is enough to form an estimated hypothesis.

One document that influenced the Texas constitution was the United States constitution. These two constitutions are very similar. As a matter of fact, both the United States and Texas constitutions have a bill of rights, a bicameral legislature, a system of checks and balances, and a separation of powers within the three branches of government; legislative, executive, and judicial branches. One major reason I believe the United States constitution influenced the Texas constitution is because of the separation of powers divided into three different branches. However, the difference between the two constitutions and their branches of government is how the two differ from state powers and federal powers. For example, both of their executive branches have the power to veto or pass a law presented by the legislative branch. But in the United States Constitution, the executive branch is mainly dependent on the president whereas for the Texas constitution it is dependent on the governor and so on and so forth.

One United States supreme court case that affected federalism and impacted Texas is the supreme court case, Caron v. United States. In this case, the supreme court ruled that federal law forbids a person convicted of a serious offense to possess any type of firearm and requires that a three-time felon who violates this law will receive an increased sentence. I believe this affected Texas and federalism because in Texas gun laws are not just very controversial but they are very important for our citizens. Personally, the way I see this case is that it genuinely helped protect the people of the states by not allowing a felon to possess a firearm and if they do they receive enhanced sentencing. This case affected federalism by changing the way the second amendment was enforced by the United States and Texas.

I think that the Texas legislative branch is the most powerful and influential today because the legislative branch has the power of coming up with a bill for the Texas executive branch to decide if it will become a law. If we did not have the legislative branch there would not be a branch of the Texas government that could make the laws we live under today. Even though the executive branch decides to pass or veto a bill, without the legislative branch there would be nobody to create new and improved constitutional laws. The legislative branch has many responsibilities, including most commonly known, making and presenting the bills that could possibly become a new law. When the Texas legislature presents a bill to the governor for him to sign off on, it may not be passed. For example, in the Texas “bathroom bill” that was presented to the executive branch back in 2017, Governor Greg Abbott decided that after the regular legislative session and a special session that was held in the summer, he was not going to pass the bill because of the many controversies and different opinions about the proposed bill. The Texas “bathroom bill” basically requires that transgender public high school students should use restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate. A new and improved bathroom bill is said to be drafted and sent to the governor once again. In my point of view, I believe if this bill were to be passed the first time it would have made a big difference in safety issues when it comes to how transgenders use public restrooms. Also, regarding transgenders, there are many different controversies not just about public restrooms but about sports as well in 2017 a transgender man won the women’s wrestling title in texas for the second year in a row. Not only do I believe this is not fair but it is also very unsafe. I think along with the ‘bathroom bill” our legislatures should make more laws pertaining to transgenders in sports.

References:

1. Coleman, M. (2019, November 17). Two Constitutions: A Comparison. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://dlc.dcccd.edu/txgov1-2/two-constitutions-a-comparison.
2. Regalado, D. M. (2019, November 17). Texas Government. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/odessa-texasgovernment/chapter/division-of-powers/.
3. Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998). (2019, November 17). Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/308/.
4. Associated Press in Cypress, T. (2018, February 25). Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs wins the Texas girls’ title again. Retrieved November 16, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title.
5. THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. (2019, November 16). Retrieved November 16, 2019, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.3.htm.
6. McGaughy, L. (2019, August 25). The Texas bathroom bill is dead — for now. Retrieved November 16, 2019, from https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/08/16/the-texas-bathroom-bill-is-dead-for-now/.

A constitution is an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organization, or another type of entity and commonly determine how that entity or country or government is to be governed.

When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, they become law and are enforceable by the concerned authorities, those documents may be said to be a written constitution. if they are encompassed in a single detailed document, it is said to be a codified constitution. Some constitutions (such as that of the United Kingdom) are uncodified or in their word unwritten, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases, precedence, or treaties which can also be with other countries.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign countries to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty that establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted or governed. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, it clearly defines the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power or give different powers to different branches of the government, by establishing lines that a state’s rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights and also human rights.

The constitution of the United Kingdom (UK) is a supreme law of the country, where the monarch is the head of the country and the prime minister is the head of the government. United kingdom’s constitution has a very unique characteristic that it is not codified into a single document. In other words, it is an unwritten constitution. The united kingdom’s supreme court recognizes that there are constitutional principles which include parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom also tells that Acts of Parliament have special constitutional status. These acts include the Magna Carta of 1215 which requires the King or queen to call a common counsel which is now called the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to represent people, to hold courts in a fixed place or building, to guarantee fair and unbiased trials, to guarantee the free movement of the citizen of the country, to separate the church from the state, and to guarantee rights of common and ordinary people to use the land for any logical purpose. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Claim of Rights Act 1689 cemented Parliament’s supremacy over the royals and monarch, the courts, and the churches, and said that the election of members of Parliament ought to be free and independent without any biases.

According to the standard of many countries of the world, especially western countries, the UK does not have a constitution at all in the sense that it is not in the written form which is most commonly used around the world. Around the globe, the constitution is considered as a document of fundamental and utmost importance setting out the common structure of government and its relationship with its countries citizens as well as its legal system. All countries globally, excluding the United Kingdom, Israel, and New Zealand, have adopted a documentary, codified, or written kind of constitution of this kind, the first and most complete model being that of the United States of America which was written in 1788 when it declared its independence from the UK. The American constitution was written by their founding fathers and then it was enforced. However, in Britain, I can certainly say that they have a constitution, but it is one that exists in an abstract sense (Unwritten), including a list of diverse laws, practices, and conventions that have evolved and changed over a very long period of time throughout their history.

If we compare UK’s constitution with the United States of America’s constitution we can get a very interesting comparison. Both countries are constitutional democracies. The UK has an uncodified or unwritten constitution on the other hand the united states of America’s constitution is codified or written. The US constitution consists of a strict system of separation of powers between the three branches of government which are Legislative, Executive, and Judicial on the other hand the UK has a mixture of powers like the prime minister of the UK is also a member of the parliament that is not the case with US president. The US constitution is a Presidential constitution which means the head of the US state is the president, whereas the UK has a Parliamentary constitution which means the parliament chooses the prime minister. For a bill to become law and then become part of the constitution, it has to simply pass through and be voted on in Parliament in the United Kingdom with the majority winning but whereas in America 2/3 of the states and senate must vote in the favour of the bill for an amendment to be added in the constitution. This is the main reason besides having a lot of negativity against gun law in America it has not been changed. Whenever any government tries to change the gun laws in the US, each time they fail. This is because the US needs 2/3 votes from the states and senate to do so but they are unable to get that king of the vote. If something like this controversial law (Gun law) has to be changed in the UK they can do it easily because they don’t need a 2/3rd vote to do so, only a majority vote can change the law. The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom cannot declare legislation from the Parliament as unconstitutional because the supreme court does not have the power to do so. On the other hand, the American Supreme Court can declare any Executive act or Act of Congress as unconstitutional because it has the power to do so which has been given to them by their constitution.

The British constitution protects the rights of its citizen like any other country. Although the UK does not have written human rights laws or human safeguard laws but it has many precedents which make it compliant to these laws. Human rights in the UK include the right to life, rights against torture, rights against forced labor, and many many more. The Magna Carta of 1215 is the biggest example of UK human rights. The bill of rights 1689 is another example of human rights in the UK. It is a landmark act in the UK that gives its citizen civil rights. This act gave the United Kingdom citizen the freedom of speech. Before that, they were not allowed to talk against the monarch and were not allowed to protest. But after this bill was erected the Britishers got their civil rights.

No system in the world is perfect, every system as its pros and cons. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is no exception. The main advantage of an unwritten constitution is that it is very flexible and dynamic. It can be changed very easily in comparison to the written form of the constitution like of the USA. They have been trying to change their Gun laws for a long time but they are unable to do so because of the written constitution. If the UK had gun laws like the USA then it would have been easier for the UK to change them. Another advantage of the UK’s constitution is that it can be changed according to the needs and demands of modern times. The world is changing day by day at a very high speed so it is easier for the UK to make changes to their laws according to the current situation. The UK constitution is described as a living constitution because it evolves and adapts to reflect changing social attitudes such as the same-sex Marriage Act 2013.

So as per disadvantage, the absence of a written constitution means that there is no single document to consult when there is any ambiguity in any law. So they need to look at the different judgments and other legal sources in order to find what they are looking for. The power of the legislature, executives, and judges is not clearly defined because of the unwritten constitution. So, there is sometimes ambiguity about where one institute’s power ends and the others start. There can be different numbers of interpretations of any law due to the lack of a single written constitution.

So, in the end, I just want to say that whether it is a written or unwritten constitution, both has their pros and cons. If the citizen of the UK does not want a written constitution then that’s their choice. Like in the USA, where the constitution is written (a single document) the people are very particular about their constitution and they give it the highest regard. They sometimes become more conservative when it comes to their laws and way of life, whereas in the UK people are more flexible and open-minded when it comes to their constitution and they can change any law with a majority vote anytime they want.

Bibliography

1. The British Library. 2020. Britain’s unwritten constitution – The British Library. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution#:~:text=Unlike%20most%20modern%20states%2C%20Britain,now%20have%20a%20written%20constitution.. [Accessed 10 October 2020].
2. The UK vs US Constitution – Compare and contrast table in A Level and IB Government & Politics. 2020. The UK vs US Constitution – Compare and contrast table in A Level and IB Government & Politics. [ONLINE] Available at: https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/the-uk-vs-us-constitution#:~:text=The%20UK%20has%20an%20uncodified,UK%20has%20a%20Parliamentary%20constitution.. [Accessed 15 October 2020].
3. BBC News. 2020. Why America’s gun laws won’t change – BBC News. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12158148. [Accessed 17 October 2020].
4. Strengths and weaknesses of the UK Constitution. 2020. Strengths and weaknesses of the UK Constitution. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/PhilosophicalInvestigations/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-uk-constitution. [Accessed 19 October 2020].

The Articles of Confederation were an adequate beginning to how we create a union, and establishing order within our country. This Confederation style of government helped our nation persevere through the Revolutionary War and give hope to those coming out of the “Mad” King George’s ruling. However, soon after, it would need to be altered as it quickly lost its effectiveness and left our war torn states in the need of a new constitution. But the article that is most detrimental to fulfilling the goals of that constitution, will have to be Article III: The Judicial Branch.

Article III establishes a supreme court and defines its jurisdiction (O’Connor, 44). Congress also gains the ability to appoint “inferior” courts such district and appellate courts. This case gave smaller states a fighting chance against larger ones through the great compromise of having two legislative bodies also termed as a bicameral legislature. This event is important because it shows that their decisions were being kept in mind rather than being disregarded due to their lower amount of state representatives, ultimately while changing the outcome in disputes. Although it is otherwise not stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave itself the power of a judicial review through the case of Marbury vs. Madison, this event basically gave the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The significance of this is that it allows laws in our constitution to be re-evaluated if deemed unlawful or does not “ Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity” (US Const. Preamble).

Many people are uneducated on the fact that chief and regular justices are not actually elected, but rather appointed by the president himself to serve practically life terms. Because of this, they can better work on solving controversy and speaking forth in debates together.

This article also confessed that the salaries of the justices could not be lowered in office. This made swaying opinions in congress much harder because affecting pay rates negatively was no longer an option.In section two of article two, it is stated that if a person breaks a law in one state, and travels to another right after, when he or she is caught, they will be sent back to the state in which they committed the crime to be tried. This institution ensures that there will be an appropriate and fair trial due to other places having different rules. Without this law, a person could very much commit a terrible crime in one area then move to another area where punishment is not as severe as it would have been in the state the crime was carried out. This makes it certain that justice is served, again, tying back into the message of the preamble.

This article also implemented a way congress carries out its justice, through its means of solving issues involving treason. In short, it mostly states that someone cannot be convicted without there being two eyewitnesses to testify against them, or if he or she confesses in court. If found guilty, punishment would of course be in order, but the family of the convicted is not to be harmed or threatened at all. This ensures the safety of our nation by catching people in the act of supporting other countries against us, or by simply leaking information deemed classified. All of these institutions are important because they improve our federal court system and bring light to how we interpret the laws that put order in our country. This also makes it important that our judiciary remains non-partisan from things like media and self interest so that those who present themselves to supreme court can have assurance in their cases being handled fairly. Without it, there would be mass bias and corruption within the court system ,not that there isn’t already some now, but it could have been way worse.

Although articles 1 and 2 are both good additions to the constitution, they appeal to the government itself rather than the rights and liberties of people as individuals and wholes. With that being said, we can see how this solves problems in the future like unity problems, leadership error, and problems with a unicameral legislature.

To sum up, article 3 of the Articles of Confederation has the most significant role in fulfilling the goals of the constitution as stated in the preamble by ensuring that liberties are protected, justice is served and that our nation is unified and strong enough to keep us civilized and in order.

Independence of Judiciary

In India, the question of the independence of the judiciary has been a subject of heated national debates and articles over the last many years. It has exercised the minds of legislators, jurists, and politicians. Both the supporters and the opponents have cogent arguments in support of their views. This question assumes great importance whenever the Supreme Court holds a particular Act passed by the parliament of the constitution or whenever Government supersedes any person while making appointments of the judges of the High Courts or the Supreme Courts.

The supporters of absolute independence of the judiciary argue that in the absence of an independent judiciary, democracy cannot succeed. Before we discuss how the independence of the judiciary is maintained in India, it is essential to explain what do we mean by the term “Independence of Judiciary”. In the words of Dr. V.K. Rao, “Independence of Judiciary has three meanings:

1. The judiciary must be free from encroachment from other organs in its sphere. In this respect, it is called separation of powers. Our Constitution makes the judiciary absolutely independent except in certain matters where the Executive heads are given some powers of remission.
2. It means the freedom of judgment and freedom from legislative interference. In this respect, our constitutional position in not very happy because the legislature can in some respects override the decision of the judiciary by legislation. The income-tax Amendment ordinance of 1954 is an example.
3. The decision of the judiciary should not be influenced by either the executive or the legislature it means freedom from both, fear and favor of the other two organs.

Independence of the Judiciary is necessitated not because of eagerness on the part of the people to treat judges as favored members of the public services. It is essential for maintaining purity of justice in the social system and enabling them to earn public confidence in the administration of justice.

The first political philosopher, who propounded the idea of an independent judiciary, was Montesquieu, the famous French philosopher. He believed in the theory of separation of powers of the three branches of the Government these are Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The fathers of the American Constitution were impressed by his theory. They, therefore, established an independent judiciary in the country. The American people have great faith in the independence of the judiciary. They are convinced that if any fetters are placed on the independence of the judiciary, the rights and liberties of the people might be endangered.

In the United Kingdom, however, the Parliament is supreme. The Judiciary, there has not separated from the legislature. In fact, there the House of Lords acts as the highest Court of appeal. Although in the U.K., the judiciary has not been independent or supreme, yet its judges have been giving decisions without fear or favor on matters coming up before them. They have been independent and impartial in their Judgements. The U.K. does not have a written constitution but still, its people enjoy no less liberty than the Americans. In the U.K. no major clash between the parliament and the judiciary has occurred so far.

In India, the Constitution has spelled out the fundamental rights of the people and made the judiciary independent so that it can safeguard and uphold these rights. If experience is any guide, the Supreme Court has invariably shown a high degree of independence in giving its judgment. Some of its judgments even went against the Government. The Supreme Court is held in high esteem by the parliament, the government, and the people of India for its role in protecting and guarding the rights and liberties of the citizens, advising the government on complex constitutional issues, dispensing justice to the people, awarding, confirming, reducing or enhancing the punishment awarded by lower courts to the criminals.

The objective of independence of the judiciary

Independence of Judiciary is sine guenon of democracy. In a democratic polity, the supreme power of the state is shared among the three principle organs of constitutional functionaries namely the constitutional task assigned to the Judiciary is no way less than that of other functionaries legislature and executive. Indeed it is the role of the Judiciary to carry out the constitutional message and it is its responsibility to keep a vigilant watch over the functioning of democracy in accordance with the dictates, directives, and imperative commands of the constitution by checking the excessive authority of other constitutional functionaries beyond the ken of constitution. So the Judiciary has to act as the sentinel. Our Constitution does not strictly adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers but it does provide for the distribution of power to ensure that one organ of the govt. does not trench on the constitutional powers of other organs. The distribution of powers concept assumes the existence of a judicial system free from external as well as internal presses. Under our Constitute the Judiciary has been assigned the onerous task of safeguarding the fundamental rights of our citizens and upholding the Rule of Law. Since the courts are entrusted with the duty to uphold the constitution and the laws, it very often comes in conflict with the state when it dries to enforce orders by exacting obedience. Therefore, the need for an independent t and impartial Judiciary manned by persons of sterling quality and character, underlying courage and determination and resolution impartiality and independence who would dispose of justice without fear fervor, ill will, or affection. Justice without fear or fervor, ill will, or affection, is the cordial creed of our constitution and a solemn assurance of every Judge to the people of this great country.

America Divided: The Impeachment of the 45th President of the United States

Zero transparency and/or accountability, claims of being above the law, not working with the other co-equal branches of government, evidence of illicit behaviors and actions, and the slippage of democracy. These are all things our founding fathers feared to happen in our great nation. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an event to set up this countries government, and the goal was to be a non-monarch style rule that was present in Europe. The impeachment process was intended to protect the office of the presidency and restore faith in the process (Krishna, 1991).

In 1787 from twelve of the thirteen states came together in Philadelphia. With the exception of Rhode Island, due to their stance on being indifferent towards central government. The delegates met in the same place where they signed the Declaration of Independence, in order to think of how to best revise the Articles of Confederation. During this meeting at the Constitutional Convention consisted on discussing a stronger central government. One in which can get things done, make sure the states get along with one another, raise both taxes and armies. However, they didn’t want a central government that was to strong, because they didn’t want to create a monarchy here in the United States. So, they were looking for a balance of a government that was strong enough to get things done, but not so strong to promote tyranny (Linder, n.d.).

The Virgina Plan was the first plan submitted for the creation of our new government at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Edmund Randolph and James Madison were the authors of the document. The plan favored larger states by giving them more power due to having larger populations. The creation of the two Houses (bicameral), and seats were based on a states population (Linder, n.d.). One House is elected by the people, and the other is selected by the states legislators themselves. The Chief Executive was also chosen by the Legislature, and so was the Judicial Branch. Thus, the Three Branch governmental system was proposed. This was the first proposal and small states were concerned. The major concern was being overpowered by larger states with larger populations. In a nut shell, this plan gives the Legislature a lot of power.

The Revolutionary War was focused on limiting what was seen as dangerous power of the King of Great Britton (Maier, n.d.). Many of our found fathers point out the fact that the King could both decide to go to war, and also direct the war. The founders of the Constitutional Convention were very explicit that they wanted to split that apart (Hamburger, 1993). There are multiple references in the debates of issues of the King. Alexander Hamilton, a person who felt very strongly about Executive Power, stated that the President would have way more limited power. He said the President only directs military operations. By restricting the power of the Executive, the founding fathers saw an opportunity to empower the Legislature. In doing so, protecting the Legislature from corrupt influences. Thomas Jefferson talked about the dangers of the “Dogs of War,” transferring the power of who gets to let them loose. They felt it shouldn’t be held by one person, or even just one body of people. You need both houses of Congress, then it heads to the Presidents desk. When the founding fathers created the American Republic, they consciously decided to limit the power of any individual actor (Federalist Papers #66, n.d.). Including being able to check each other, to balance each other, and that includes both foreign and domestic. They wanted to avoid the chaos of Europe. They didn’t want tyranny to encapsulate the government here at home. The impeachment process was and is meant to be the ultimate check on lawlessness from a President.

Before the Constitutional Convention, America lived by a set of rules known as The Articles of Confederation. This was essentially the first “Constitution” but was a flawed one a best. The idea was that The Articles of Confederation would establish a national government that was equitable to all member states. The national government would be able to declare war, coin money, trade with tribes and they would have diplomacy. But like I said this was a flawed system at best for several reasons. All 13 states and the overall government had their own form of currency. As you could imagine, this did not work well. For example, if you were from Georgia and had money from Georgia and decided to travel to North Carolina and wanted to buy anything, you wouldn’t be able to because North Carolina doesn’t accept money from Georgia. They only accept money from North Carolina, this caused a lot of problems but was not the only issue. Because every state had one vote no matter the number of people living in the state, there was no taxes, incentive or cooperation between states. So, several delegates met in Philadelphia on May 1787 for what is known as the Constitutional Convention.

The Convention lasted for about four months and consisted mostly of male lawyers around the age of 44. James Madison was the only person who showed up every day during this 4-month period. Which is understandable, would you want to show up to a crowded hot room full of a bunch of old men arguing about the same stuff every day for 4 months? The goal of this Convention was to basically scrap the Articles, re-define the goals and create a new framework. This might sound simple but when you put a relatively random group of people in a room together to decide the fate of their country, you are going to have some differences. Here’s what they could agree on; Rejection of concentrated, hereditary power (Monarchies), “Limited” Government and republicanism. The things the Framers could not agree on are as follows; majority rule and minority rights, power of large and small states, lawmaking vs. local power slavery. As you can see the Framers disagreed on more then what they could agree on. Sadly, part of the reason slavery was a topic that could not be agreed on was because it was often used as a bargaining chip with more of deeper South states to get them to agree on other topics.

There were several compromises made during this 4-month period. Arguably, the two most important ones were; The Great Compromise and the 3/5’s Compromise. The Great Compromise helped to shape our government regarding how the legislator would be organized. The Framers created one house based off the population of each state (The House of Representatives) and the second house which held two seats for every state (The Senate). The 3/5’s Compromise had to do with how the Southern slaves would affect the House of Representatives. The Southern states wanted their slaves to count as part of their population to help represent them in Congress. They came to an agreement where only 3/5 of the slaves in a state would be eligible to represent them in the house.

Compromise is supposed to be a good thing in any situation, especially when talking about politics. The hope is that when there is an issue between two conflicting sides, they will both give a little and reach a middle ground. They might not like having to give up a part of what they want but this way they still get a part of what it is they are fighting for. When we are talking abut politics, it tends to affect the entire country, so these compromises are allowing everyone in the country to get a bit of what they want. Not just one side (that’s at least the goal). Just based off the two compromises I have listed; you can see that some hold up and some don’t. To this day we still have The House of Representatives and the Senate. But the 3/5’s Compromise didn’t hold for a number of reasons. For starters we don’t have slaves anymore, at least not legally. But at the end of the day, every single person counts as a full human who has a right to vote and represent their country. Which is how it should be.

I want to take this paragraph to talk about the people that were at the Constitutional convention and how things would be different if we were to basically do it again but at this day in age. For starters, the fact that most of the people shaping the future of our country didn’t even show up every single day is not a good thing. If you are going to represent a state and try and come to an agreement on many hard-hitting topics, then you better show up prepared and ready to fight. If the Constitutional Convention were to be happening now, it would not just be a bunch of 44-year-old male lawyers. Because that is not at all accurately representing America today. It wasn’t even accurately representing America then. At the very least, there would be people of color and women and hopefully people with a wider range of ages and different occupations/backgrounds. With today’s social media platforms and influencers out there, I think a lot more people would not only get interested in what would be happening but it could also help to make final decisions on arguments that the people at the convention might not be a be to settle. If it seems its hard to come to a compromise, then they could ask the people to take a vote. This vote could be quick and easy be making it online. Not only would this help to settle arguments but it would allow the people to feel more involved and hopefully allow the constitution to better reflect the peoples wants and needs. At the time that the constitution was created, it was great for America. But when you flash forward 232 years later into 2019, things are a bit different. The constitution has only been amended 27 times sense its creation, that is not a lot when you think about how ever changing not only the U.S is but the entire world. I include the world in this because even though the Constitution only applies to the United States, what is happening around us should affect how we do things I the U.S. Even though the constitution should have some more changes does not mean its nit affective or that it should or will be abolished any time soon. There are three main goals that the Constitution must meet in order to continue being good and functioning. Those three goals are as follows; limits government action, defines the political process and is amendable. Which ours for the most part meets these goals. But that’s not all, the other reasons the Constitution is likely to remain the framework for the government are; Ambiguity, its brief its vague and its short. Because of this, is open for interpretation. It’s also durable, it has made it this long and because of that people are not likely going to want to change it any time soon. It’s become a huge part of Americas history and Americans like there history. So if it ain’t broke then why fix it.

Those who kept up with the news would be no stranger to how dysfunctional the Congress were back in 2013, during Obama’s terms. In 2013, Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at The New Yorker and the senior legal analyst for CNN, wrote an impressive essay called “Our Broken Constitution”. Toobin went through the history of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, queried if there is any result of the Constitution and commented about the Constitution. I agree with him when he showed the evidence about how not democratic the government was as I thought. However, he gave out some displaced facts that were unacceptable; for example, the information that he mentioned in the opening statement, the slavery issues in 1787 and the number of senators in the House.

At the beginning of the article, Toobin mentioned the national celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the signing of the Constitution and talked to a professor who participated named Sandford Levison, a Law professor of Harvard Law School. Levison talked about the way in which the Congress worked “If you look at the Constitution, you see that it was drafted by people who were not little-‘d’ democrats” (Toobin, paragraph 6). It is true because as usual, a President was elected from one party and the majority in Congress from the other party, so that everything they do is argue time after time. The U.S is a Democratic country, as people believe; democracy is “a political system in which people govern themselves, with capitalism. In theory, a democratic government promotes individualism and the freedom to act as one chooses instead of being controlled, for good or bad, by government. Capitalism, in turn, relies on individualism. At the same time, successful capitalists prefer political systems over which they can exert at least some influence in order to maintain their liberty” (Krutz and Sylvie, chapter 1.1). In short, democratic country is where representative government and capitalism developed together. The next thing Toobin discussed is about the Constitutional Convention in 1787; the power of states and individuals. He also addressed about the debate of how many delegates one state should have. The article ends with the saying of President Obama without propounding any formal solution to solve the problem.

First, I strongly agree with the idea of how undemocratic the government was. The Virginia Federalist, James Madison and New York Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, said that “the government existed to serve people, not the artificial entities know as states” (Toobin, paragraph 12). Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, also defined today Democrats as “The Senate is an institution that stops change. That’s how it’s designed, and that is always going to hurt that party that wants change, the activist party” (Toobin, paragraph 16). The ‘electoral vote pandering’ was occurred when presidential candidates of both parties tried to picking a state or regional favorite who could possibly have been believed to be the ‘best person’ prepared to take over should anything happen to the President (‘How the Constitution Is Structuring the 2008 Race). Randy and his group are the one who do not like the form of government and they only feel justified with checks and balances, so that they (the majority) can do whatever they want. Followed by that thinking, only New York and California can run the country, the minority can’t fight back because they always lose (Toobin, paragraph 27).

In the paragraph 6 of the article, Toobin wrote “Implicitly but unmistakably, the 1787 Constitution allowed for the continuation of slavery”. However, it is not true, there is nothing implicit about the approval of continuing slavery. In the first Article, Section 2, Clause 3 states “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons” (Jefferson Autobiography). Moreover, the Article V reasserts the abolition od slave trade “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” (Mount).

Toobin wrote about President Obama in the paragraph 17 “Though he will spend eight years in office, his tenure as the actual leader of the national government lasted about a year and a half. On July 7, 2009, Al Franken was seated, after a recount, as the sixtieth Democratic senator. (Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.) …In the midterm elections of 2010, Obama’s party lost control of the House and fell below the filibuster threshold in the Senate”. However, in the journal of Steve Benen called “A fleeting, illusory supermajority” published on MSNBC, Steve stated “In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen” (Benen). There were only 57 senators in May 2009 and 59 senators in August 2009 (Benen). It was never always enough 60 senators as Toobin said.

“Our Broken Constitution” article of Jeffrey Toobin was impressively full of awareness but there were still some flaws. I have no objection about how undemocratic this country was; all of the information and saying that he proclaimed were definitely convincing. The states have absolutely more power than the citizens, even though the concept of Democracy is to be ruled by the people through representatives. However, there were some misplaced facts about the slavery issues during the Convention 1787, he said that the slave trade continued even it did end at that time. Moreover, the fact about the number of senators in the House is not completely true. It was not always be enough 60 senators.

Work Cited:

1. Benen, Steve. ‘A Fleeting, Illusory Supermajority.’ MSNBC. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fleeting-illusory-supermajority.
2. Jefferson Autobiography. ‘Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.’ The Founders’ Constitution. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_3s1.html.
3. ‘How the Constitution Is Structuring the 2008 Race.’ Law.utexas, February 2, 2008. Accessed March 3, 2019. https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/slevinson/undemocratic/blog/.
4. Krutz, Glen, and Sylvie Waskiewicz. OpenStax CNX. Accessed March 03, 2019. https://cnx.org/contents/W8wOWXNF@18.1:SausD7cO@5/What-is-Government.
5. Mount, Steve. ‘U.S. Constitution – Article 5.’ U.S Constitution. Accessed March 3, 2019. https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html.
6. Toobin, Jeffrey. ‘Our Broken Constitution.’ The New Yorker, December 9, 2013. Accessed March 3, 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution.