The anti-federalists had a variety of objections to the constitution but in general they were united by their believe that liberty could be secured only in small republic with limited enumerated powers in which the rulers were physically close to and were closely checked by the ruled. Brutus argued along this line to convince the citizens not to vote for the then proposed constitution.
According to Brutus who was speaking on behalf of the public argued that people had their power to determine and shape their destinies as well as solves matters that are of their interest. He advised them to vote for the Federal constitution that was prepared on behalf of all states only and only, if they felt that it was good to them. He urged them to make calculated move and be decisive while voting for the constitution. He was advocating for a constitution that would protect the liberty, the human rights and bring happiness to citizens and through this the future generations. (Brutus 18th October, 1787)
Brutus was specifically opposed to the idea of curtailing the liberty of citizens, despotism and promotion of aristocracy, as this would bring to an end the freedom of citizens. The anti federalists were against the absolutism of the Federal laws that everybody was bound to respect. Infact, every individual no matter their status were to be affected by the federal laws something that would make citizens to lose their say in political matters. Anti federalists were opposed to the idea of submitting their power of collecting state revenues and taxes to the Federal Government. According to Brutus if a large society was made the state would lose their powers in allocating duties, taxing imports and exports as these would be determined by the United States which would have absolute powers to collect and use that money as they wished.
Brutus and his people were concerned over the judicial power which was subject to be created and dictated upon by the US Congress there by swallowing all the powers of the small state courts. They opposed the idea of US being under one government. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory” (Brutus 1787)
Madison in his reaction to Brutus opinions, in 1887 praised the formation of the constructed union that to him was a break through in the fight against the control and violence propagated by factions. According to Madison faction was any group either comprising of the majority or minority with a motive of pursuing their interests against the wish of the community. He believed that there were only two ways through which faction would be eliminated and one way of curing was by removing its causes and by controlling its effects. This was to be done by killing the liberty of citizens that is, making all citizens to share same opinions, passions and interests as this was the only viable means of reducing divisions. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire an aliment without which it instantly expires” (Madison J. 1787)
He believed that factions existed because of fallible reasoning in men. Thus the conditions for the faction survival exist in the nature of people. It is difference in views over religion, government and power politics which are advanced by various leaders that create divisions amongst people. To him people should not be allowed to be the judge of their own cause for they tend to be biased. Thus there is nothing like absolute liberty which Brutus was advocating for. There is no way a body of citizens could be judges and subjects at the same time so he was against the idea of the rulers being checked by the ruled. He disagreed with the idea of Brutus that state would be able to manage their differences and clashing interests.
Still on the issue of faction, Madison said that incase a faction is made up of the minority then through the republican policy, the divisions are wiped out by the regular vote and when it is comprised of the majority, the popularity of the government takes care of the pressing problem. The government should have various have various department according to (Madison 1788) as per the constitution as it is the only way through which liberty would be preserved.
To avoid power being concentrated in one office, the proposed Federal constitution would address this problem. To him the ambitions of man must be harmonized with those of the state. Men should not be allowed to govern themselves for the government reflects the true nature of man.” If men were angels, no government would be necessary. (Madison 1788)
In short Madison was against Brutus’s idea of having homogeneous state that was to be governed by its citizens. He objected the idea of subject being the government and the governed at the same time. He also opposed Brutus idea of a small state with absolute liberty and said that it was to be replaced by the bigger state under the confederation. Madison failed to address some of the important issues that Brutus put forward and this was a very big threat to the survival of states and the liberty of citizens.
Reference:
Brutus 18th October, 1787. To the Citizens of the State of New York. Web.
Madison J. 1788. The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. The Federalist No. 51. Web.
Madison J.1787. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection Daily Advertiser. The Federalist No. 10. Web.
The Texas constitution in place today was written in 1876 and has a legacy that can be defined in accordance with the prevailing circumstances during the period of its adoption. To understand the negative sentiments echoed over time in regard to its inappropriateness in this day and age, it is necessary to understand the needs and urges that it sought to address during its adoption. It was written after the reconstruction period during which time the majority felt that the government had grown to be very powerful and influential usurping the role of the individuals in the state.
The amended constitution was seeking to protect the Texas citizens against any further infringement of their rights and freedoms by the government. That was then, and many believe it was able to serve its purpose effectively. However, there has over time been a general feeling and strong sentiments in support of radical changes in the constitution. To a large portion, it had become rather restrictive and only serving the interests of a small number of people in the elite. In spite of these widely held opinions, comprehensive reforms have been compounded by a clique of power-wielding individuals that are largely believed to be the beneficiaries of the status quo (Edward M. Walters, 22).
Main body
The constitution is wordy and detailed to a fault when compared to other constitutions of the various states. The current constitution contains more than a hundred thousand words, meshed together, but they contain no specific guidelines on government policies. It should be understood that in the writing of this constitution, much resentment had been directed to the government after the then governor Davis refused to relinquish office forcing people, especially in the lower bracket income to forcefully remove him from office.
With the thoughts of the civilian revolution still in mind, there arose a need to re-write the constitution that witnessed the creation of a constitution that devolved the powers of the government to the local level, reducing significantly the government powers. The role of the government in the state was relegated and taxes significantly reduced.
The state has grown in population and the economy is favorable, with the weak institutions as stipulated in the constitution, the government is finding it extremely hard to carry out its activities effectively. There has been a sense of protracted efforts in the past to completely overhaul the constitution but they have not borne any fruits. What has been achieved is only a number of piecemeal amendments. The need to change the constitution emanates from the belief that the government has very few powers within which to carry out its duties, the emotional writing of the current constitution saw it lose vital powers that are needed especially in today’s environment (George Alan Tarr, 43).
To date, it has seen over 409 amendments in the bid to make it more adaptive to situational changes. The piecemeal amendments have become the in thing every year with the citizens having to take to the polls to vote on some minor issues, as the legislations require. In 2003 for example, citizens had to vote on whether to give public universities retiree’s compensation, for any services they may have provided. Another proposition that was passed was the one that sought to put a limit to the amount of money or damages given in a civil lawsuit. What has been happening in these propositions is that special interest groups that have a direct stake in the proposition invest millions of dollars in the effort to influence the vote through advertisements. For example in the lawsuit proposition, doctors placed advertisements all over urging the citizens to ‘save doctors’.
In addition to the weaknesses aforementioned, the Texas constitution in its current state has been widely criticized for being behind the inefficiencies exhibited in most of the public agencies. It has also produced a legislature that is very lowly remunerated and this has given rise to powerful interest groups that influence the action of the legislature. It is these interest groups that stand in the way of a complete overhaul of the constitution. Theoretically, the Texas constitution slashed the powers of the executives devolving them to the local councils; practically, however, these powers lie in the hands of the strategically placed in the community (Harvard Law Review, 444).
The constitution has been said to be cumbersome due to its wordiness. It also lacks the necessary flexibility. The intensity of the amendments done is a sign that it is in dire need of rewriting especially as calls that were there in the 1970s for it to be amended went on unheeded. The state is divided almost by half, between those that want to see the constitution amended and those who are comfortable with the way it is. Some claim that overhauling the current constitution is not necessary, amendments are the way to go to correct the past wrongs contained in the constitution.
There is another reason why those opposing the overhaul of the constitution may succeed. Most people in Texas are politically inactive. Most don’t participate in the political process and will rarely vote. As most opinion leaders admit, every time there is an election, only one person out of ten votes. A vote hence to rewrite the constitution will not reflect the verdict of majority Texans but rather of the interest groups. Compared to the United States, the Texas constitution has seen numerous amendments more than any state in America (John E. B., Janice C M., 36).
Experts in constitutions attribute these amendments to the unequal distribution of powers. The United States constitution grants power equally to the executive, legislative, and the courts. In Texas majority of these powers are vested in people, this a times can be detrimental due to the fact that the opinion of the public can be swayed by emotional events and advertisements more than by logic. This is done at the expense of the administration. The United States Constitution allows the legislature to pass laws for the nation.
There is a high likelihood that should the constitution be rewritten, voters will not ratify it. This is not an opinion based on the mere fact that it is easy to oppose a proposition especially when it lies in the public’s court, but rather this opinion emanates from the look at the apathy that continues to characterize Texas politics. The interest groups that exist and those high in the socio-economic class do not want to let go of the powers to make decisions. The citizens too will not come out in numbers to support what experts say is a change that has taken too long to materialize. Many in Texas remain ignorant of the political events that go around the state and will rarely come out to vote.
Conclusion
It is apparent that the Texas constitution needs to be written afresh. It has become too detailed and rigid such that it does not adapt adequately to the demographic changes within and without Texas. It was written at a time when the publics’ emotions were turned against the governor and the public wanted the powers of the executives devolved to the local governments. However, this largely anticipated change might not bear fruits due to the conflicting interest groups that continue to enjoy the status quo coupled with Texas voter’s apathy.
Works Cited
Edward M. Walters. Finding anything about everything in Texas. 100 credible broke and 100 reliable. 2005; 22.
George Alan Tarr. Understanding State Constitutions. Princeton University Press, 1998; 43.
John Kanelis. Texas Constitution is a big problem. Web.
John Elber Bebout, Janice C May. The Texas constitution: Problems and Prospects for Revision. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Texas at Arlington, 1971; 36.
Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Review Association, Harvard Law School.1919; 444.
Social scientists have subjected the conduct of attorneys to theoretical conceptualization in cases of litigation on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A spirited discussion by legal scholars has been advanced to assess the conduct of attorneys in the said litigation.
The dominant issue in the said debates has been to establish the role of attorneys in cases falling under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Largely, legal scholars have contended that the attorney general should exercise impartiality in the mentioned cases since acting otherwise would be a violation of the Constitution.
John’s argument
John Edwards, in his famous argument, asserts that attorneys are faced with confusion when litigation involves a conflict between a policy and a constitutional duty. Edwards asserted that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dictates a defined cause of action.
On the other hand, the pursuance of the mentioned course of action may conflict with political interests. The role of partisan politics in litigation may change the conduct of the attorney in Charter Rights litigation.
Edwards states that the attorney should act in an independent way which is free from the influence of the government. His argument has been endorsed by Ian Scott, a former Ontario attorney. The duties of the attorney general are in continuous conflict with the political wishes of the government.
The attorney general being the official government legal representative has a duty to protect the government’s policies, but the attorney general can not be compelled to do so.
In defending the Charter Rights, the attorney general should desist from any form of partisan litigation and his/her impartiality should be fostered. In the highly politicized cases, the test of the attorney general’s independence has been tested.
Edwards argued that in an event that the attorney general represented the government in the Charter of Rights litigation, he had a constitutional duty to protect the interests of the public.
The academic arguments on the independence of the attorney general in the Charter of Rights litigation have been numerous, but there are rare instances when such impartiality has been exercised.
Scott agrees with John’s argument while maintaining that the exercise of independence by the attorney general should be determined by the circumstances surrounding each case. At some point, Scott differs partly with John’s argument.
According to him, the attorney general should endeavor to make sure that litigation does not compete with policies. This can be achieved through the competent exercise of the attorney general’s role in the cabinet.
In an event that the attorney general advice is rejected, and a policy which is unconstitutional is formulated, the attorney has a duty to act independently.
Paul’s argument
On the other hand, Paul Thomas takes the administrative role theory stating that the attorney general has an exclusive duty to support the political wishes of the government. The conflict can be avoided by the attorney general through offering his/her advice to the cabinet before a policy is formulated.
In evaluating the author’s arguments, it is essential to note how they failed or succeed. Edward’s argument on independence of the attorney general failed during the same sex related cases whereby the attorney general took the same position with the government.
The argument by Thomas Paul is conclusive since the same sex related cases proved that the attorney general’s conduct is determined by the government’s policy. John’s argument does not achieve his goal of promoting the attorney general’s independence.
On the other hand, Paul’s argument is founded on practicability, and his goal to show that the attorney general participates in policy making is achieved.
Conclusion
The understanding that the attorney general is the legal representative of the government leads to the conclusion that promotion of government policies in litigation is inevitable. The Independence of the attorney general as put across by John Edward is not conclusive.
Thomas Paul’s argument is valid since it portrays the practical conduct of the attorney general in promoting the government’s policies. John’s argument has failed in the same sex marriage cases while Thomas argument has been supported. It is clear that Thomas Paul’s argument has succeeded.
There are many people who feel that it is wrong to amend the constitution as they view it as an expression of basic and timeless personal liberties. There have been only 27 changes to the Constitution since it was written in 1787 and the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of rights – made to guarantee personal freedoms for citizens (Mulcrone, 2001). The Framers deliberately made the amendment process so difficult that the Constitution would not be changed frivolously (Armstrong, 2002).
Article V of the Constitution is devoted to the amendment process and provides two ways in which amendments may be proposed and adopted. In the first method, Congress proposes amendments that are approved by at least a two-thirds vote in both houses – the House of Representatives and the Senate. The States can then ratify the proposed amendments. The second method is less known and has never been used. This method requires Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments when two-thirds of the States apply for such a convention (Rogers, 2007).
Philosophical viewpoint
The idea of accommodating and limiting legal and by inference, constitutional, change was not unique to the American Founders but was characteristic of views taken by philosophers over the previous two thousand years (Vile, 1992). Aristotle saw legal change chiefly as a means of introducing innovations pointed to by experience; Machiavelli, Gordon and Trenchard, and Montesquieu viewed constitutional change primarily as a matter of constitutional renewal or adaptation to changes in the habits of the people; Plato, Penn, and Rousseau suggested mechanisms for constitutional change while Machiavelli thought it could best be initiated by outstanding men (Vile, 1992).
Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, and Hume did not clearly distinguish between legal change and revolutionary change, and, only Rousseau and Penn appear clearly to have distinguished ordinary legal changes from constitutional changes (Vile, 1992). In short, the philosophical consensus has been that legal change should be both accommodated and limited.
Obstacles
Two major obstacles to the development of an amending mechanism were the belief that some principles should not be changed and the fear that changes in the law would undermine governmental stability by accustoming the citizens to continuous changes (Vile, 1992).
Historical
The first official action of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 towards amending the Constitution was the adoption of Resolution 17, which stated that the Constitution should contain some means for the amendment but did not include details (Rogers, 2007). The first reference to the use of a convention requested by the States is found in drafts of the Constitution kept by the Committee of Detail. Hamilton and others argued that Congress should also have the power to propose amendments, and the Convention approved of it. James Madison suggested that the national legislature be the sole authority to propose amendments.
This was adopted by the Convention (Rogers, 2007). When the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason opposed limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry responded by amending the article so that it now required a convention be called when two-thirds of the States applied for an amendment (Rogers, 2007).
Morris and Gerry’s motion was unanimously adopted. Roger Sherman expressed concern that the Constitution could be amended to take power away from smaller states, and therefore the clause stating “that no State, without its consent” could be deprived of “equal suffrage in the Senate” was added (Rogers, 2007). No further changes were made to the text of Article V, and the final version of the Constitution was adopted.
Article V
According to Article V of the Constitution, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall find it necessary, they can propose amendments to the Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, can call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which shall be ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, or by three-fourths of the Convention provided that the Amendment does not take away privileges of any State in the Senate.
A proposed amendment can originate in Congress or in the States but State origination has never happened. All 27 amendments have started with a two-thirds vote of both the U.S. House and Senate (Armstrong, 2002). The 21st Amendment, the Repeal of Prohibition, came about as a result of a constitutional convention (Chism, 2005). The President’s signature is not necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment. Three-quarters of the state legislatures must ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. All of the Amendments but one (the Twenty-first which was approved by state ratification conventions) have been ratified by votes of the state legislatures (Armstrong, 2002).
Modern Significance of the Convention Clause
The Convention Clause has never been used to amend the Constitution. But it has played an important role in spurring Congress to amend the Constitution. A constitutional convention has tremendous potential as a way of proposing amendments that would enjoy significant popular support but that have not been proposed in Congress (Rogers, 2007). It will allow the people to have their say beyond the voice of the government.
According to a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive in 2005, the three most popular proposed amendments were a balanced budget amendment, an amendment requiring that judges only interpret and not make the law, and a congressional term limits amendment (Rogers, 2007). These are issues on which Congress has failed to act and is reluctant to act as they limit the powers of its members. In situations such as these, the Convention Clause provides an important means to adopt or force Congress to adopt amendments that are seen to be in the national interest by a large majority of the American population. Although the convention method for proposing amendments has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes spurred Congress to action.
Conclusion
Constitution has so far been amended for the following reasons: to increase or decrease the power of the National Government; to expand the electorate and its power; to reduce the Electorate’s Power; to limit State Government power, and to make structural changes in Government.
Bibliography
Mulcrone, Patricia (2001). McGraw-HIll’s GED: The Most Complete and Reliable Study Program for the GED Tests. McGraw-Hill’s GED. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Rogers, Kenneth James (2007). The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V. Constitutional Convention Amendment Process. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Volume 30, Issue 3.
Chism, Kahlil (2005). The Constitutional Amendment Process. Social Education. Volume 69, Issue 7.
Vile, R. John (1992). The Constitutional Amending Process in American Political Thought. Praeger Publishers. New York. Publication.
Armstrong, Rob (2002). Covering Government: A Civics Handbook for Journalists. Blackwell Publishing.
The preamble of the constitution of United States points out the importance of a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty. The government of America is based upon the principle of democracy and this principle is approved by the theory of Montesquieu that the government that is elected by the people is the best form of government. The committee which was formed for the formation of the constitution included Hamilton, Morris, Madison, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, and Rufus King of Massachusetts.
They used the theories and principles of Montesquieu, who urged that there must be a balance of power among the three groups of officials like in England. In England the power which was divided between the king, parliament and the judges of English court. And he called this idea of dividing the power into three branches as “separation of powers”. The theories of Montesquieu are based on judgment based universal reasoning and are applicable for the constitutions of modern republics and federation of states like United States. Moreover, Montesquieu was able to recognize the link between law, property and freedom.
The constitution of the United States says that, the power of legislation is vested upon a congress of United States, which consists of a senate and House of Representatives, the executive power is vested on a president of the United States of America, and the judicial power of the United States is vested on a supreme court. Here David F. Weiman points out that, “In this historical case the pivotal event was the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, two centuries before the Maastricht Treaty.
Between formal independence in 1781 and the implementation of the Constitution reforms in 1789, the fledgling country was organised politically into a loose confederation of thirteen, virtually sovereign states. Despite the nominal powers granted to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, it lacked the direct means to collect taxes and to enforce its policies.” (Weiman, 2006). Historically, the constitution was ratified in 1788, and was reformed in 1789. This resulted in the political organization of the country into a loose confederation of thirteen states which are virtually sovereign states.
Montesquieu believed that it is important to reconstruct the government of separate branches but with equal and different powers. This is aimed to avoid placing unlimited power with one individual or group of individuals. So the constitution ensures that no branch of the government can threaten the freedom of the people. The ideas of Montesquieu, which is related to the separation of powers among different branches of the government, became the basis of United States Constitution.
The preamble of the constitution gives an abstract idea about the content and much of it is from a previous work by George Mason, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Steve Mount points out that “The Declaration of Independence is divided into three main parts, in a style that was very common in its day. A preamble, a list of grievances or justifications, and finally the point of all that preceded it. Much of the preamble came from a previous work by George Mason, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Published just days after Lee’s proposition to the Congress, Jefferson borrowed heavily from the work.” (Mount, 2007).
The separation of power which is adopted from the ideas of Montesquieu is considered as the foundation of the constitution. Historically the people of United States consist of the people migrated to the mainland from various parts of Europe. Geographical discoveries helped the people of Europe to establish colonial settlements in America and this resulted in the permutation of various cultural aspects. So it was easier to accept various ideas from the constitution of England and from Montesquieu.
To an extent, the ideas of Montesquieu were considered as the principles of democracy but he did not believe that all the people are equal. For a federation of states like United States, it must be considered that there must be a power to control and to protect the personal liberty of its citizens. Melvin Richter “Montesquieu used comparison to show differences and to demonstrate similarities among the laws and practices of different peoples, as well as in a given people at different periods; to specify the range of variations among those similarly classified; and, above all, to explain both uniformities and diversities.
He devised five distinct modes of comparison, each phrased in a different set of categories. From them were to be generated many of the disciplines and special fields in the human sciences.” (Richter, 2002). The theory of comparison formulated by Montesquieu to compare differences among the people is helpful to formulate the laws regarding the constitution.
Montesquieu believed in liberalism but he says that political virtue is found in a monarchial government and this can be seen in the constitution of England where the royal family is considered as sacred and powerful. But the constitution in United States is based upon a republican form of government which guarantees to every state a republican form of government and protection against invasion. Sol Bloom says that “Centuries of struggle had won for Englishmen many guaranties of rights, liberties, and immunities.
English common law was fairly established when the colonies were begun. Some rights and immunities which had been enjoyed from time immemorial were reduced to writing in Magna Carta (see p. 511), which was wrung from King John by the barons of England at Runnymede in 1215.” (Bloom, 1941) and there must be struggle from the people or from their representatives in the parliament to guarantee the rights, liberties, and immunities.
According to Montesquieu, democratic form of government where the people have the power to select their representative is the best form of government and there is a right balance of power. According to the constitution of the United States, the congress which is a group of representatives selected by the people in entitled to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises.
The facts that are published by eNotes.com,2008 points out that “Although he was an aristocratic philosophe of the French Enlightenment, Montesquieu will likely be best remembered for his tremendous impact on the development of constitutional government, particularly that of the United States—a country that did not exist at the time of his death.” (Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu, 2008). Montesquieu must be remembered for his impact on the development of constitutional government, not as the person who backed the monarchy.
According to Montesquieu, laws of the government reduce the problems of society and it values the importance of human life. In United States, judicial power is vested upon the Supreme Court and the trial of all crimes is undertaken by the jury. But the president is the commander in chief of Army Navy and Military of several states. Montesquieu believed in diversity of human beings and individual difference. Randal R Hendrickson points out that “Montesquieu begins from diversity, but he does not end with it.
He appreciates variety, but he does not succumb to it. He works with it. He is willing and able to give credit where credit is due. But one form of government-advancing in knowledge of the right things, moving to gentleness of the right sort, and overcoming prejudice of a particular kind-is better suited to us than others on his view” (Hendrickson, 2007) and he does not stick on to the principle and further goes on to individual liberty of human beings in a society.
Montesquieu believed that all things were made up of rules and laws that never changed. But this is not applicable for a modern state where the laws are amended according to changes in the society. Only by amending the laws according to the change conflicts among the states can be settled. Hon. Jack Brooks points out that “The conflict between large and small States disappeared in the early years of the republic.
More lasting was the division between slave and Free States that had been a disturbing undercurrent in the Convention debates. The Convention’s strained attempt to avoid using the word slavery in the articles granting recognition and protection to that institution scarcely hid the regional divisions that would remain unresolved under the terms of union agreed to in 1787.” (Jack Brooks, 1992). There must be a power to control the states and it must be a centralized one. In United States’ constitution the executive power is vested upon the president but each house in the congress may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behaviors.
Montesquieu approved of slavery but the word slave or slavery does not appear in the United States’ constitution and ten provisions dealing with slavery were included and it is considered as the most cruel and inhuman act. But Bob Avakian says that “But the reality is not so simple as this, nor does this reflect what Montesquieu was essentially seeking to do in this part of “The Spirit of the Laws.”
It can be said that in “The Spirit of the Laws” Montesquieu’s position is one of general opposition to slavery, and he indicates that slavery is not appropriate in countries like France; but, at the same time, he speaks to various circumstances in which he believes slavery can be justified or reasonable.” (Avakian, 2006) we must not consider that Montesquieu approved slavery in all societies but it must be considered under the diversity of societies.
So it can be concluded that Montesquieu the French philosopher influenced the formation of the constitution of United States of America. The theories and ideas on separation of power, formation of executive power, democracy, law and order personal liberty and slavery influenced the committee which is appointed for the framing of the constitution. The ideas and principles formulated before centuries by Montesquieu is not considered as outdated but are relevant for the smooth working of a modern republic. Moreover, the theories are based democracy which is considered as the best form of government.
The author describes the structures that governments in the US should aim at achieving (Madison par. 1). The Federal Constitution provides the best platform upon which power could be shared between the state and national governments. The sharing of power is essential in the process of governance because government services are taken closer to the citizens and the citizens’ views are considered by leaders. The considerations are important in improving people’s lives through improved infrastructure and economic gains.
However, complaints have been raised about unwarranted partiality (Madison par. 3). One of the main reasons for the concerns among the citizens is that the US governments are unstable. Due to the instability, many citizens do not benefit from the devolved system of governance.
The instability is precipitated by rival political parties, which spearhead their interests without considering the interests of the citizens. Other issues that have led to unstable governments in the US are nepotism, corruption, unfair wages, and unequal distribution of resources that result in unequal development in different parts of the US. If the US Constitution is implemented as it was intended, then such complaints could not be raised.
A faction is a collection of people with common interests (Madison par. 6). A faction could be a few individuals or the majority of citizens in the community who are united by their impulse of passion that they aim at achieving. Examples of factions in the US are the political parties whose members unite to achieve political interests. The political interests are only obtained when such members ascend to power. The existence of factions does not promote liberty of the majority citizens, but a few people who are members of such factions.
However, liberty could be improved by removing factions. One of the ways of removing factions from the community is through the destruction of liberty that characterizes factions. However, it could be difficult to abolish liberty that is enjoyed by the political class, because it promotes factions. Second, it could be important to teach the citizens the demerits of factions in society.
However, such a move could not succeed because of the different opinions that are expressed by people. For example, religion has promoted the formation of factions because people identify with different denominations in the US (Madison par. 7).
A republican government that accepts representation of the citizens so that their problems could be addressed by the top leadership (Auerbach, Schrotenboer, Uthman, and Wolken par. 2). A republican government also delegates to a significant extent its duties to ensure uniform representation at all levels. On the other hand, a democratic form of government is characterized by a majority of elected leaders (Madison par. 8). However, democratic governments could be limited to a smaller geographical region than republican governments.
Madison asserts that a republican government could be a better form of government if it is implemented well (Madison par. 8). People’s views are better represented by a few leaders who speak to their people directly and then represent their issues to a higher governing body that has the authority to order for the execution of many programs that could benefit the citizens. However, political leaders misuse the government by working toward fulfilling their selfish political interests (Madison par. 9).
That notwithstanding, the constitutional republican government in the US is important in two main ways. First, it covers a larger area than could be impractical with a democratic form of government. This ensures that more people benefit from government programs and policies.
Second, houses of representations that are adopted by the constitutional republic government give the US citizens a better representation that ensures that their issues are addressed in a faster manner that could not happen with the adoption of a democratic form of government (Auerbach et al. par. 6).
The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution aims at giving states the powers that were not granted to the US (National Constitutional Center par. 7). It also seeks to give the people of the US all the powers that were not given to the United States at the time of writing the US Constitution. The Amendment is quite relevant in the distribution powers between the federal and state governments (National Constitutional Center par. 9).
The Amendment considers the fact that some powers could have been left without being assigned to the United States, states and/or people. Thus, the Amendment aims at giving the states more powers by giving them all the powers that were left unassigned. This is important because it seeks to separate powers between the two categories of governments in the US.
Also, it ensures that powers are not concentrated in one governing body, a fact that improves the level of accountability and transparency with regard to the use of public resources. The US Bill of Rights contains important laws that guarantee citizens or governments some important rights.
The founders of the Tenth Amendment placed it in the Bill of Rights because that is where all the first ten amendments of the US Constitution are placed. Thus, the Tenth Amendment has high chances of being implemented because it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
The American constitution distinctly specifies powers that are bequeathed to the congress and those that are not. Enumerate powers, for instance confer on the congress the sole authority to pronounce wars and levy federal taxes. Also the congress is granted ‘implied powers’ that allow it to usurp other powers when passing laws that may conflict with states statutes. Even so, the congress’ authority is limited as it cannot pass ex facto laws; any law which outlaws an act after it has been committed. Congress can’t also pass bills of attainder; statutes that legalize punishment of wrong doers outside the courts structure. Moreover, Congress does not have any authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; a court order compelling the federal government to charge arrested persons in court.
The American congress has five main functions. They include legislative representation of the people of the federal States that make up the U.S.A., helping constituents, enacting federal laws, educating the public on federal matters and performing oversight duties on the executive and the Senate. Members of the congress are expected to uphold norms in order to be adjudged fit and competent to represent the people. Being an elective position, congress man and woman woos their electorate every two years to either get to Capitol Hill in Washington, or remain there. Congress men and women therefore make every effort to attune business on the floor of the house to the perspective of their constituents. Consequently, three theories prescribe how a member of congress should carry him/herself. These include organizational, representational and attitudinal theories.
The representational theory presumes that members wish to be re-elected and hence vote to please their constituents. The electorate makes clear their view on issues, therefore a legislator’s vote attract its attention and is markedly noted; with potential political repercussions. On the other hand, the organizational theory presupposes that most of the constituents do not know much of what their legislator voted on thus there isn’t any need to please them but there is need to please the legislators who vote to please fellow members of congress, either through party lines or ideology. The attitudinal theory supposes that there are conflicting pressures on the members which cancel out one another making them vote on their belief of what benefits them.
The congress has two distinctive powers granted by the constitution. They include Enumerated and Implied Powers. These powers are subdivided into four major categories; trade regulation powers gives congress the responsibility to regulate foreign and interstate trade but it does not give it any authority to make laws which may benefit trade between states. Congress is also granted with fiscal powers which confer the responsibility to collect taxes and levies from federal states. The money collated is used to settle the country’s debts, provide for the well being of the nation and fund the nation’s military expenditure. Further, congress is bestowed with military powers with which it is responsible for the defense of the country through the establishment of military force.
The congress has the authority to establish military laws, organize and arm personnel and ensure that military operations are enforced. This power is jointly shared with the president though the declaration/pronunciation of war is a solely lies with the congress. The congress is also mandated the power to establish post offices to ensure smooth delivery of mails within the infrastructure. Also the congress is mandated to establish agencies that keep the country running smoothly. Consequently, congress can investigate any extenuating national issue as it is charged with supervision and mitigation of a balance in the executive and judicial branches. The country’s supreme law grants congress the powers to establish the federal court systems which maintain law and order throughout the United States of America.
The congress; house of representative has gone through six phases in the American history. The first phase; during the administrations of the first three presidents, the house of representatives was regarded as a group of people whose powers overshadowed the senate. The second phase; in the late 1820s during the Andrew Jackson’s term in office; he was known to veto bills when a policy opposed him. The fight about slavery together with the civil war crushed party unity and divided the members, further limiting the speaker’s powers. Subsequently, radical republicans imposed harsh sentences on post civil war convicts who came from the south, an indication of the weakened leadership in the House of Representatives.
The third phase came towards the end of the 19th century. The speaker had regained his powers. Tomas B. Reed obtained more authority through the vote of his party in the house. As the chair of the rules committee, he was mandated to choose who was to speak and who wasn’t to speak. Though his successor, Joseph Cannon, tried to further this tradition in the year 1903, the conservatives were more than the republicans in the house. The fourth phase saw the members’ revolt against the speaker, Czar Cannon. The house powers were subsequently distributed amongst the Chairman and Rules Committee respectively. Then it progressed to individual empowerment in the fifth phase when members began to change rules so as to limit the powers of the chair. As the committee chair became more elective, the holder could not refuse to convene meetings since they would be held accountable. The sixth phase made things even more difficulty than before. This is because most of the congress men were not doing their own biding.
Currently, the senate is controlled by the democrats while the House of Representatives is controlled by the republicans. The major political issues defined in this year’s congressional elections were immigration and debt crisis bedeviling of the nation. This year’s election outcome may impact these issues where the leaders’ elect will have to consider ways in which to curb immigration and the spiraling the national debt respectively.
The national media has three foremost roles in regards to politics; being watchdogs, gatekeepers, and scorekeepers. As watchdogs media scrutinize the loop holes that politicians can seize on, changing their course in fulfilling the requirements of the law. Gate keeping entails making sure the fourth estate keeps abreast of everything; bills that the law makers pass in the house, scrutinizing their significance and relevance to the citizenry. The media is a scorekeeper in that it guarantees every candidate reach to the electorate via print and electronic mass media.
Main components of the Government set out by Georgia’s constitution
From the assessment of Georgia state constitution, there are two main components of the government besides the local government. The two branches are the executive branch, which is composed of the governor, the plural executive, and constitutional boards and commissions, and the judicial branch composed of trial courts, appellate courts, and district attorneys and juries. Local government of Georgia includes counties, cities, and districts. Normally, the governor is the most influential political figure in Georgia.
This political influence is grounded on the official authority established by the state’s constitution, and several other bases of power such as the laws, media, public view, and links to political parties, concerned groups, and individual characteristics. The veto power of the governor is contained in the legislative article in the constitution of Georgia. The governor has the power to take action on legislation that has been ratified by the General assembly, which would have some impacts on the law, but excludes modifications in the constitution. Any bill signed by the governor becomes a law on a particular date, typically at the beginning of the financial year.
Georgia constitution demands that voters have to elect other six departmental executives a part from the governor and deputy governor. All together, these eight executives are designated as the ‘elected constitutional officers’. Just like other major states, Georgia selects an attorney general and the state secretary. However, it is one of the few states that allow voters to elect state school superintendent together with individuals who manage the agricultural, insurance, and personnel departments. These persons have authority to regulate the kind of businesses that take place within their jurisdictions, especially agriculture and insurance officers.
How the services of Georgia are authorized by the constitution
Most services provided by Georgia State are authorized by the constitution through the budget. The state is compelled by its constitution to uphold a balanced budget. This implies that the government expenditure cannot be in excess of the available incomes and reserves saved from the preceding years. The kind of programs and services provided by the state depends on the budget. The budget changes with any alteration in revenue collection. Therefore, the success or failure of Georgia’s revenue-collection efforts obviously influence on the amount and value of services provided to the citizens. Therefore, one way by which the services are authorized by the constitution is through the budget since it determines the amount of cash to be spent.
The constitution of Georgia also directly prohibits counties from participating in some activities, especially those that impact on the local school structures or any law court. In addition, it specifies the functions that can be executed by cities or counties. Some of these services are comprised of public transportation, provision of health care services and facilities, public library systems, as well as compliance to the established building codes. In this way, it is evident that the constitution authorizes different services and activities taking place in the counties. This is particularly significant in counties that were initially accredited to offer urban services through the constitutional ratification of 1972. Cities and counties are also allowed, in article 9, to practice planning and zoning, possess personal property, make local arrangements and consolidate with each other (Hill, 1994).
Identification of at least one service from judicial, educational, and social service system
Within the judicial system of the state, there are trial courts and appellate courts that ensure proper provision of legal services to members of the public. Trial courts apply laws to the facts available in a particular case in determining whether an individual committed a criminal or civil offense while appellate courts analyzes the activities of trial courts to define the law questions related to it. Any issue that requires legal process can be solved through Georgia judicial services. For instance, superior court can be described as a court of overall jurisdiction, and hears a wide range of severe cases such as felonies, divorces, several civil disputes, and such like issues. Trial courts have a jurisdiction to hear into cases that are less serious compared to superior courts. Basically, they can be regarded as municipal courts that handle cases concerning traffic laws, local laws, and other transgressions.
Provision of education services has also been mentioned in article 8 of the constitution. Education system in Georgia is diverse and the constitution requires the election of an education superintendent to administer public education. Educational policy making at local level is the obligation of selected school boards, who are charged with responsibility of hiring a superintendent as the main administrator. On the social arena, the constitution of Georgia encourages equal protection of citizens through their court system. This implies that it discourages any form of discrimination based on sex, age, background, race, color, or disability.
Identification of two major funding sources for Georgia and the major programs or services that receive the funding
There are several sources of revenue for Georgia State, which includes different forms of fees, taxes, and lottery funds. The establishment of various sources of funds and their modes of collection is described within the legislative act. The responsibility of collecting and managing of the state revenue is bestowed upon the revenue department, which is a state executive agency. Many revenue decisions in Georgia are made by the governor, who is the budget administrator of the state. The two major sources of funding for Georgia include Georgia tax sources and Nontax revenues. Taxes can be considered as the most observable form of state revenue.
It can be described as an obligatory imbursement made by people, families, or companies to the government. Taxes are charged on earnings, possessions, and most bought commodities. There are several different kinds of tax in Georgia. Examples of these include; individual income tax, company income tax, insurance premium tax, General sales tax, Property tax, inheritance tax, and excise tax. Furthermore, the state collects money from various services they provide, like entrance costs into parks that it conserves. The main nontax revenue source for Georgia State is the lottery. There are numerous games that take place in Georgia making lottery to be a very viable source of funds (Digby, 2005).
Every state must have services or programs to direct their funds to, and Georgia State is no exception. The two major services that use the state funds include Public education system and infrastructure development. Almost all funds used within these sectors are obtained from the state.
Human communities are shaped by values. These values have been established in society through the efforts of people through channels such as leadership, ownership, and the will of the majority. Small impacts have successfully led to a collection of great impacts due to accumulation. When one is born, it is said that he/she is in the state of nature, seeing that everyone is important and without vices.
According to Rousseau, a person in the state of nature is compassionate and without evil. As a person grows and interacts with society, he begins to understand the social differences, and finally, his mind is poisoned. Rousseau argued that in the past people had no hunger for individual ownership of the property until one person fenced a piece of land and claimed that the land belonged to him; after this, people started to own property. With time many had so little while some had great masses of wealth. This in turn brought about some people working for others and later slavery.
The consequence was that those that were slaves felt that they were being exploited and crime began, for instance, robberies, killings among other social evils. This was because of the tight competition for resources where the loser felt cheated. The rich then saw that they needed something that could govern the community and put it in order; this turned out to be the supreme law to be followed by all people.
This is when the constitution was drafted and people were either to agree or disagree with it. The power of general will finds a place in this context. The legislator, one who writes the constitution has to consider all the people in the society so that majority can be on his side. The laws in the constitution become a platform of governance. The constitution may change over time according to the economic status of the community and value system. This essay will discuss the origin of inequality, the general will, constitution, and bill of rights about revolution and their significance in the community.
State of nature
All human creation is equal. This is a topic that many people stand still to listen to because it is in human nature desire to be respected and to be loved. Every human is born equal to all others even if other physical aspects such as ownership, race, tribe, and leadership draw a line when one begins to realize who they are according to their age. Every human has some attributes whether good or bad.
Firstly, the inner ability to think in all social circles is there but the power to implement one’s thoughts is either favored by the measure of wealth or denied by lack of finances. In his book, Rousseau emphasized that all men are equal in the state of nature such as body and mind. This essay will discuss how all men are equal and to what extent the equality diminishes and the contributing factors of inequality. This will bring out major concepts of human societies and the factors that affect their achievements.
Rousseau argued that ‘the first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took in his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe in him, was the true founder of civil society’ (Rousseau 3). Rousseau sees this was a big trick to people that originated from a man that needed possessions and subsequent spread of this trait to the society. This episode was followed by brainwashing the people and using them to create greater social differences. He called for unity to empower the rich and suppress the poor indirectly by creating rules and regulations that they readily agreed on.
This led to slavery by the poor and the rich became their bosses. All men desire to acquire wealth and to own. Men believed that they can work and own, and so they labor to achieve their goals. However, this becomes dangerous when different people focus on one property and no one is ready to accept defeat or rather a competition. This in turn may result in a fight initiated by the loser as a way of revenge.
Violence and crime build up in this simple way. The winner then lives in fear of attack. Therefore, the rich and the poor are equally important. Though they may not achieve the same goals; the winner’s peace is dependent on the loser’s attitude. Many people who believe that they had a right to own and were denied the opportunity becomes a problem and even sometimes may cost the winner his/her life.
Men also love to be in power. The strong will to dominate their territories such as other men and in their families is the nature of all men worldwide. The inequality led people to work not for love or compassion but for the pay they would get. Rousseau also captured equality in politics. The government plays a major role in the country or state and how the citizens relate with each other. The government can either protect its citizens or exploit them. In the past, the constitution was imprisoning the majority of the citizens and this called for the need for the bill of rights. Whereas wealth and riches may bring joy and happiness, it is not guaranteed that a wealthy man will always stay happy.
In contrast, many are the things that one may wish to acquire but money might make it possible for such to be acquired. A poor man may enjoy good health and freedom while a wealthy man may not have the same privilege. A man, regardless of his social status values, should be respected even by a wealthy person. If all people are equal, then many social evils witnessed today will most reduce in number.
On the other hand one should not despise the fact that though men may be equal, many disparities are very outstanding. The claiming or fight for equality by many will always be endangered by some of the aspects that cannot be avoided. For example, the age of a person should always be respected though it is continually failing due to poor ways of children’s upbringing. The mental conception automatically determines how humans relate and treat each other. Most human beings have main values regardless of their wealth. Human nature majors in good values such as kindness, love, and honesty among others.
Though a person may not express this to everyone, there is always someone or something they love and show gratitude to. Equality is only at birth. The environment by which one grows shapes him or her and fits him to a particular class due to social-economic factors.
General will
General will exist in all communities, and it is defined as a will that is accepted by most community members. The result is that this leads to the main goal. It can punish those that deviate from it and protect those who are faithful to it. The expression of the general will is by all actions performed by the majority in a society. The community as a whole has a great influence on its social economic and political development depending on the choice of the general will. This also greatly affects politics considering that political leaders are elected by the citizens and those with the highest votes win.
It has been argued that “The General will is not just property of the state as a whole but also a property of each citizen within it” (Daniel 1). This shows that each individual is important and has an influence on the community as a whole. General will therefore be the will that satisfied most of the citizens. In a community, no one is dependent on himself alone. All people work and interact actively either directly or indirectly.
Every citizen has the right to contribute personally or through representatives. Every citizen has his rights and should be able to fight for them. This will promote happiness and justice; for it is in human nature to be compassionate and treat other people as they would like to be treated.
However, the general will is not always supported due to social differences in a community where those in powers enforce a rule in their favor. In this way, injustice and freedom are denied to the poor man. It has been argued that:
The idea of the general will is at the heart of Rousseau’s philosophy. The general will is not the will of the majority. Rather, it is the will of the political organism that he sees as an entity with a life of its own. (Daniel 279)
The political and social status of a society is largely affected by its citizens. Values of society are also failed by a community member’s opinions, social places such as churches and schools, and are often affected by the culture. The value of society such as religion molds the individual behavior and therefore a community at large. The character that is built-in individual is likely to spread and have its grassroots in a particular community. A community is built or destroyed by its citizens. This is dependent on what the community decides as their leaders. Good planning by the government promotes the growth and development of a community and therefore a state at large.
The legislator proposes the laws to be used by people and the community must accept or reject it. For this constitution to be approved, the citizens must vote to agree with it. The constitution is only approved if the majority who are usually the higher percentage wins. If the opposition wins the constitution is not approved as it signifies that the General Will of the majority feels that their freedom and rights are denied, more than the constitution promises to approve the livelihoods of the people. When people feel deprived of their rights they call for amendments to the constitution.
Rousseau believed that the state of inequality came up as a result of social institutions. He saw that people’s hunger to accumulate wealth and increase their achievements grew over time. This was the origin of corruption and people were no longer in the state of their nature. There was then a need to control and restrict people from misuse of power and protect the community from exploitation.
The social groups developed some habits and those that felt that they were more equal than others called themselves the civilized. Since it was everybody’s wish to be in the civilized group, the civilized found a good platform to form a set of rules that could govern the people. This was a good idea since even those who did not belong to the civilized group felt that they will have a place to belong. A set of rules and regulations were made to govern the community. These rules were set by a legislator and written down as a reference. Those who liked them voted for them while those who did not like them opposed them.
This document was called a constitution and was the basis of governance in the community. The citizens, therefore, acted according to the constitution of their government. The general will then come in as a result; meaning that it is only if all the people agree to a common goal that the constitution recommended has to work. The legislator must therefore convince the citizens concerning the constitution displaying the advantages so that they can vote for it.
People’s general will change with time and in between generations. What values are there over a certain time keeps on improving or deteriorating depending on the value system of a community. The community is therefore responsible for shaping the value system of its citizens. Institutions such as churches, educational and working places set a good platform to implement good virtues but on the other hand if they fail the whole community can end up developing undesirable values. There is therefore a need to have social workers, psychologists, and advisors to direct the community for the welfare of society as a whole.
The level of dependence varies, though, for example, the ones in power depend on the rest of the people the level of dependence of the common citizen is higher than the dependence of the rich on the poor. The poor must work for the rich to get income for their (poor’s) survival.
Constitution
A constitution is a set of laws that are set to give a guideline that all people should abide by. A community is ruled by a set of laws that are made by the government. The government selects individuals who are experts in different fields to represent the members of the society. These experts work on various issues that affect the communities in the country. These representatives propose a draft that is read to the citizens and then the amendments are made to various articles that are rejected by the majority. Finally, the citizens as a whole are supposed to vote for the constitution and this is where the issue of general will comes in.
If the majority are pleased by the constitution they will vote for it or vice versa. If the constitution fails, then the process must start again until a certain percentage agrees with the constitution. This is why Daniel Webster in his book said, “It is, Sir, the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people” (Daniel 1). This is true because the constitution must be made by the people of a particular community and not from outside.
In the event, the general will approves the set of laws they then become a constitution. It then becomes legally binding such that those that fail to follow the rules and regulations are subjected to punishment by the judicial system.
The constitution is referred to as belonging to the people because they are the ones who make it legally binding by voting for it. Voting meaning they agreed to abide by it and that they agreed to its terms and conditions. The citizens, therefore, become answerable to their government since they become subject to the choices they make. If a constitution becomes oppressive with time the blame game of the minority may start against the proposers. This is because this minority feels that they were deprived of their rights. They blame those who supported the constitution.
People demand a new constitution to improve their livelihoods and free themselves. It comes when citizens feel that the present constitution is subjecting them to slavery and so the need for a better constitution: “This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the State Legislatures, or the creature of the people?”(Daniel 1). However, it has been pointed out that the constitution is prone to be abused at times. Those in power may manipulate the passing of a constitution even when such a document enslaves the people voting for it.
The poor are then left out and just find themselves becoming slaves. In some countries especially in Africa, the citizens have voted for constitutions that have subjected them to exploitation. This brings about a large difference between the poor and the rich. Those who are poor have become poorer, while the rich have become richer. If the constitution was made for the people, it should take care of their needs; mind their labor, and their rights. Complaints that are brought up by those in power show a great excuse when they blame the citizens who voted for the constitution. The interests of the composers are well established with time.
It forms deep roots that become too difficult for the people to uproot. What should citizens do? This becomes the source of crime, the source of violence, poverty, and inequality. The citizens need their freedom, they need their rights but they watch as another human being, just like themselves without anything special than them, hurting them so deeply. The powerless people become the servants and slaves of the great people, the schemers.
The constitution also forms the basis of selection. For example, education sieves out the people, who become leaders. Leadership is therefore not a result of talent and ability. The rich families educate their children in the so-called best schools. But one asks himself, what about those who have the talent but with no resources to nurture this talent? Their wisdom and knowledge are never brought to light except for the few lucky ones.
Thus though the constitution is made by the people it is not subject to the opinion of the majority who formed it. It should fully perform the purpose for which it was formed and fulfill people’s expectations. However, some advantages control bad behavior and crime and it forms a stage for people to exercise leadership.
Without these laws in the constitution, the world would become inhabitable to most people. The bloodthirsty men would lay their hands on the innocent. Many would die at expense of those exercising their experiments and people would be irresponsible. If one now commits a crime he knows there is a fine or jailing after the crime and hence majority avoids crimes.
Bill of rights
Bills of rights are clauses in a constitution that originated as a result of people feeling imprisoned by the present constitution. Thus, their importance is paramount. People, therefore, needed to set themselves free and hence called for amendments in the constitution. James Madison was the first to bring up this topic in the first congress of the United States of America. These rights restricted the use of power by the government.
They included the freedom of worship, association, right to speak, and the use of media. Twelve issues were proposed but not all of them were approved. In 1971, ten bills of rights were added to the former constitution. Patrick Henry said “Give me Liberty or give me death!” (Williamsburg 1) This is a person who could fight to the death for his freedom. The bill of rights was such an important aspect in the fight for freedom without weapons, but only by writing it down. This was mainly to protect the people’s freedom as well as to limit those who seemed to have it all. In the United States of America, amendments were made to the constitution.
Firstly the constitution was to give freedom to religious groups and give freedom of speech and the press. Secondly, the citizens had a right to own arms and not as before where only a few groups of people could own firearms. Thirdly the bill of rights looked at the security of the people. The soldiers have also deprived the right to intrude people’s houses with no reason and unnecessary searches in homes were prohibited. All people were subject to the law regardless of their position in the government. This included leaders who were also to be equally accountable for their actions.
The nature of human beings to have freedom will always be there. The government should always work to protect its citizens. Basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing should be availed to the people at affordable rates. Human labor should also have a minimum limit so that everyone can afford to live a comfortable life regardless of the nature of work. The government is therefore responsible for establishing laws in the constitution which are meant to regulate the workforce done by the people. The laws should also protect its citizens from overworking.
Other rights include business, family, and gender-related. In families, children for example have a right to get a good education. Therefore a parent cannot stop a child from going to school so that he or she can work at home. These rights limit even those who are very close to a person such as a parent or a husband. Gender rights such as the rights for women to own property after divorce subject men to respond because they know it will cost them. This mostly contributes positively to good values in society.
The decisions that are made by the government are very important. It is its role to protect its citizens from exploitation. Some of the immigrants in a country can become a good platform for the exploitation of the citizens. This is an indirect form of colonization whereby the immigrants in the country invest heavily in their foreign country. These immigrants slowly grow and exploit the natives of the land to grow their businesses by poor wages. With time the immigrants become very strong for the government to handle them or to get them from their country.
The government should also be prepared to handle disasters by having well-strategized organizations for natural and other disasters. This is to protect the people from great losses that they might not be able to incur. Disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and fires are some of the things that the government is supposed to be prepared for always.
All citizens are also entitled to certain commodities such as water, good housing. Therefore the government is held accountable for the welfare of the citizens. Some of the laws however have some negative impacts resulting from the bill of rights. The rights and liberty that was given to the media have negative social impacts because some of the people have gone overboard. The fast communication of the negatives in society can easily bring violence. On the other hand, communication has become a very powerful tool in development and transparency. Each community develops its values from experience. Children in the same society are mostly having common values.
Without this bill of rights, most citizens would be prone to exploitation but these few clauses have delivered freedom to them. There is therefore great freedom for all and this is a way of promoting equality.
Revolution
Thomas B. Macaulay was an English politician, essay, and historian best known for the history of England. Born in 1800 October 25th, he was the son of the African colonial governor and notably anti-slavery philanthropist Zachary Macaulay. He began to write poetry and history at the young age of ten, and later when he went to Trinity College, he was given a prize for essay writing on the character of William and having given the anti-slavery address, it was notably published in the popular magazine of that period when political heat was high.
To a greater extent, I think that revolution was necessary for the people although people would deplore outranges which accompany revolution.
The revolution taking place in the country, though there would be violence and abuse of human rights, fluctuation in the social-economic and political development of the people, there would be a change that people would be waiting for tantamount to the general will of the people. There is a possibility that the previous government system or ruling system was not effective in the sense that people were abused by either the colonial powers or dictatorship.
Also, revolution carried violently could mean that people were oppressed in a great way to reach an apex of defiance where necessities were denied, and either some of the closest members were murdered. This could be a violation of the human right to live and express oneself freely. The revolution could mean that people could have necessities and have their rights respected to a greater extent.
Revolution through causes outrange that some would be in remorse for it. I think that a great deal of positive change could happen afterward. For example, in the French revolution:
The French Revolution brought about great changes in the society and government of France. The revolution, which lasted from 1789 to 1799, also had far-reaching effects on the rest of Europe. It introduced democratic ideals to France but did not make the nation a democracy. However, it ended the supreme rule by French kings and strengthened the middle class. After the revolution began, no European kings, nobles, or other privileged groups could ever again take their powers for granted or ignore the ideals of liberty and equality. (Woloch 1)
From the above excerpt the previous rule by the French King was oppressing the middle class of people and the poor, also, people’s social-economic status was deteriorating at a very high rate with the rich having the priority. Freedom was limited to the lower class of people and the power of the public was ignored with rulers abusing their power.
If the revolution had not taken place many people would be denied their right with the high class doing as they wish but with the revolution has taken place the plight of women has been recognized and women were given positions of power and responsibilities and this has refuted itself with their potential producing profitable work and success; equivalently, men have appreciated work done by women and male chauvinism has been triumphantly reduced. At public and social places people have mixed up with no discrimination of social status and this has spread extensively throughout the country. This, interestingly, spread through Europe.
People have recognized the power of freedom of expression and have exercised democracy with a large perspective which has to lead to people contributing to the government freely leading to a government of the people by the people of any class. The support of the people to the government and vice versa has rekindled the power of living in unity and harmony promoting tolerance among its citizenry. With this France has become one of the strong European Nation which earns great respect.
With democracy and freedom, Investment and France’s Market economy has grown tremendously with their Gross Domestic Product growing to 2.65 trillion dollars which is a great achievement in the millennium era. This supports that the economic development brought by people in unity and harmony after revolution strengthened the middle class and poor people.
Revolution was a necessity for the rights of people. After the revolution in France, people came out strongly to protest their right, which meant that people had come out of their ignorance, in the streets as in this excerpt:
The civil disorder became a common scene after the storming of the Bastille in 1789. After a few years, the French intellectuals who rode the banner of liberalism as the forerunners of the revolution issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Through this document, they aimed at shifting the authority of issuing basic human rights from the Church, or God so to say, to the state government. The King’s crown that was a symbol of Catholic Christianity was replaced with a red liberty cap that represented the state as an authority. (Kwintessential 1)
The French people were able to have their rights not withheld by the church as the only one to enforce human rights but to the democratic government which would exercise the respect of human rights throughout the nation. This shows that the government would have the power to execute any person who would violate human rights ensuring protection to all citizenry. This was contrary to what it would be without revolution.
Conclusion
Firstly, all men are equal in the state of nature such as body and mind. Inequality comes as a result of environment and ownership. Secondly; citizens are responsible for the growth and development of their society. Their decisions are very important as they form the government. Thirdly; a constitution forms the laws that govern a community. This constitution however should not be exploitative but should protect the citizens and promote equality.
Also, the citizens and the government should have powers that promote the welfare of all people. Lastly, the revolution was a necessity for growth and development in social-economic and politics, thus agreeing to a greater extent with Thomas B. Macaulay.
Works Cited
Daniel, Webster. Second Reply to Robert Hayne. US Inform, n.d. Web.
Kwintessential. Effects of the French Revolution. Kwintessential, n.d. Web.
Rousseau et al. America’s Survival Guide. America, 2011.
The “plural executive” structure as practiced in Arizona is different from the national executive structure in that several officials, as opposed to one official, are in charge. In the national government, however, the president acts as the single elective head and is assisted by several appointed subordinates. Top on the list of the Arizona executive branch is the governor (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). Then, we have the secretary of the state below the governor, followed by the attorney general. Below the attorney general is the treasurer, while the superintendent of public instruction is at the bottom of the ladder. The other two positions considered are a state mine inspector, as well as a commission made up of five people. The governor has the power to hire and fire departmental heads. In addition, the governor also influences the budget process of the state. This means that the governor also influences how the members of the state get access to public funds.
The minimal requirements for executive branch members are that they are not less than 25 years of age. In addition, the members must have been citizens of the United States for 10 years, five of which are as a resident of Arizona, the members (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). I believe that the current qualifications for members of the plural executive in Arizona are sufficient because they facilitate the election of a candidate who has the best interest of the state at heart. Historically, the executive powers were broadly dispersed and even today, this perspective is still valid and useful. This is because corruption can be reduced by having multiple elected officials. For example, territorial officials are widely known for abusing power. In the case of a plural executive branch, the multiple elected officials are in a position to watch one another. Also, no single official wields a lot of power hence they are not likely to abuse power.
The state of Arizona has three levels of jurisdiction: the limited jurisdiction consists of municipal and state courts (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). These courts are often termed as nonrecord, in that they do not require permanent records to facilitate court proceedings. Their jurisdiction is also limited to different cases. There is also the general jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Arizona falls under this level of jurisdiction. It maintains permanent records and handles different cases.
Finally, we have the state appellate courts. These courts reviews decisions and trials appealed to them.
In Arizona, counties with a population of above 250,000 often select the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges through what is known as the merit selection process. First, judicial candidates are required to submit their applications to a commission made up of mainly public members (State Bar of Arizona, n. d.). The applications are reviewed by all commission members before deciding on the applicants that qualify to be interviewed. Before the actual interview, the applicants are investigated further. Once the interviews are done, the most qualified candidates are recommended to the governor by the commission, for each judicial appointment, their names are submitted to the governor, taking into account gender and ethnic diversity. Merit (the professional qualifications of the candidate) is the primary consideration. Out of the three recommended, only one is appointed by the governor (State Bar of Arizona, n. d.). Following their appointment, judges are often subjected to what is known as retention election, periodically. This means that voters have the final decision as to whether or not they are competent enough to keep their jobs. The Judicial Performance Review Commissions, along with the help of litigants, jurors, attorneys, and the court staff examine the performances of individual judges against the established judicial performance standards.
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
This body is charged with the responsibility of establishing performance standards for judges. In addition, the body also decides if a judge fulfills the established standards, before alerting the voters on the findings (JPR. (n. d.). To do so, the commission holds public hearings to get the views of individuals who are privy to what the job performance for judges entails. They also distribute written surveys. An independent data center then compiles the survey responses and the results are then sent to the Commission. The members of the commissions then decide which judge fulfills the judicial performance standards.
The Arizona Commissions on Judicial Conduct
As an independent agency, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct examines complaints lodged against local and state judges regarding the violation of ethics and Code of Judicial Conduct Commissions on Judicial Conduct Overview. (2010). Its members include attorneys, judges, and public members.