The Constitution is the fundamental document following which the entire state functions, its most necessary aspects. Thanks to this document, the United States was finally settled in the form that the state has at the moment. On the one hand, the importance of such a text cannot be denied because, without it, the current United States could not exist. However, this document is more than 200 years old. Given how much the surrounding world has changed over the years, the question arises: does the Constitution retain its relevance in a modern government? From my point of view, even despite the extended period, the basis of this text is still relevant even in the modern world. First of all, it is worth noting that the Constitution should be considered together with all 27 amendments that are currently in place. The original text of the Constitution was not perfect, and not even all delegates were ready to sign this document due to the lack of a bill of rights (“The Constitution,” n.d.). However, through the joint work of politicians and philosophers, additional rights were formed, which people still refer to to this day.
For example, the first amendment provides the protection of freedom of speech and press, facts that remain relevant to this day, especially in the light of certain scandalous events. In addition, the importance of the Constitution and its relevance to government is expressed in the preamble, which refers to the guarantees of justice and order and the protection of freedom. Naturally, this document is not ideal, but it was not meant to be such. Even Dr. Franklin admitted mistakes in the text but hoped for a better society and future improvements (“The importance of Constitution Day,” n.d.). Thus, much of the Constitution is still relevant today, and the government should endeavor to implement it as diligently as it did during its creation. However, it should be noted that recently some actions of the government and authorities have run counter to the fundamental principles of the country. Nevertheless, the problem lies not in the relevance of the Constitution to power, since the document is correct, but in the government’s failure to comply with some of its provisions, which generates injustice and infringement of freedoms.
As well-established, the US Constitution is the document that defines the national frame of government in the United States and serves as the supreme “law of the land” being the foundation of US legislation and jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the UN Charter similarly establishes the framework of international cooperation under the United Nations, outlines goals and objectives for the UN, and creates a set of rules that governments of the world should follow concerning their own countries and other countries. The UN Charter establishes the Statute of the International Court of Justice which aims to settle disputes by countries following international law as outlined in the UN Charter and other internationally accepted treaties (Henderson, 2010). The US Constitution creates the Supreme Court that similarly seeks to adjudicate on issues of national importance and state and federal policy following the foundations outlined in the Constitution as the primary law.
Discussion
Despite these structural familiarities between the two documents, it is important to note that the UN charter is not a governing document, meaning that it was not meant to be used for the governance of sovereign states like the US Constitution. Even from a utopian perspective, the UN Charter is not meant for the creation of a world government and lacks many key factors that a national constitution must require. The Constitution has certain attributes such as ‘pervasive law’ (all law is subject) and ‘basic law’ (derives its force). The one unified system of law derived from the Constitution differs from the UN Charter, which is more of a set of guidelines, representing the decentralization prevalent in the international order. Not all international law is subject to the UN, and the Charter is not the legal source of international law (Doyle, 2010).
The first element to compare is the preamble, which in the UN Charter states, “We the peoples of the United Nations determined… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small” (n.d.). This can be compared strongly to the preamble to the US Constitution which similarly begins with “we the people” and goes on to describe a perfect union, justice, general welfare, liberty, equality, and prosperity. In both cases, there is an emphasis on the fundamental values these key documents are meant to represent.
In Chapter III, Article 7, the UN Charter establishes several key organs of the United Nations, including “a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat” (n.d.). At the same time, the Constitution also serves to establish the three primary branches of the government. These include the legislative branch to create laws, the executive branch to enforce them, and the judicial branch to oversee the courts and the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches. The documents outline the roles and capacities these governance structures provide.
Another aspect of the UN Charter is the articles regarding breaches of peace under Chapter 7. Article 39 indicates that the Security Council determines if there are threats to peace or there has been an act of aggression and the other articles decide on what could be done about it such as sanctions or a peacekeeping force. The issue is that if one member of the security council chooses to veto the resolution, little can be done, as usually happens.
Conclusion
The US Constitution similarly does not give the power to just the President to declare war or intervene in major military operations, and requires authorization by Congress but requires a majority, so it would rarely be held back for political reasons.
Drawing the connections between the US Constitution and international law was challenging, but there are some interesting parallels. One of the key aspects of the Constitution is federalism, essentially granting states certain rights and privileges as unified part of a single national government system. In international law, federalism can become very complicated. Federalism in other countries of the world typically grants partial autonomy to subunits of a nation. The question of international law then becomes what if foreign nations wish to establish close ties with that subunit because potentially of previous ethnic ties (Rubin 2017, 195). Potentially, a subunit decides to declare independence, based on the legal principle of self-determination, which is the legal right for people to decide their own destiny in the international order. In such cases, does federalism or international law take precedence?
Another key aspect is popular sovereignty, which is a controversial political doctrine that suggests that the government is created and sustained by the consent of the people. In international law, popular sovereignty takes on the concept of state sovereignty, which is the ability, power, and immunity of a state or territory to make autonomous choice. Political sovereignty is a reflection of popular sovereignty, because if a state does not respect the popular will of its people, it risks losing its attributions and facing turmoil. At the same time, international law emphasizes the right of the state, therefore its people, to autonomy from other countries in their self-determination, culture, and politics.
Checks and balances is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, creating a system where no one branch of government can concentrate an overwhelming amount of power, with other branches having the ability to legally limit it. In international law, checks and balances are often involved as a means to prevent one country having more power and privilege, at least, legally over others. One prime example is the UN Security Council, which has 5 permanent members, and 10 rotating members. The way that it is set up, given that the US can influence many of the other members, or Russia and China commonly agree on issues, no resolution can pass if a single permanent member veto it. The practicality of such systems is another discussion, but it limits the power of such influential nations such as the US or China who can influence or pressure others to pass a one-sided resolution.
One of the most immediate international actions done by the US recently was to enact sanctions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, limiting Russia’s access to its finances, and sanctioning its key industries (Macias and Franck 2022). This is arguably constitutional because Russia violated the sovereignty of another nation, broke multiple international treaties and conventions, and is in direct violation of the UN charter. Sanctions are an effective means of creating pressure and consequences stop the ongoing violence. Following the same topic, the US has recently announced that it was offering direct aid to Ukraine, including offering defensive military equipment such as anti-air and anti-tank missiles, but not going as far as providing offensive capabilities in terms of fighter planes (Kinzer 2022) The aid provided by US government is constitutional because it was part of a comprehensive budgetary package approved by Congress, and it is seen as a tool for the country to conduct its foreign affairs. From an international law perspective, it is legal as well since it is defensive and humanitarian aid meant to support Ukraine’s right to sovereignty and self-determination.
In other news, the US and UK begin talks this week on deepening trade connections, investment, and work towards a potential free trade deal as the UK has left the EU (Wall 2022). These are trade negotiations and is constitutional because the US Constitution provides the federal government with the right to negotiate foreign affair and conduct international trade on behalf of the whole nation. It is also normal and the status quo under international law to establish trading treaties with certain preferences and benefits for partner countries.
For decades, there has been an ongoing debate about the need to reform the Texas Constitution. On the one hand, the existing policy has created the prerequisites for a purchasable system of power that is received by the one who pays the most, on the other hand, it has made it possible to achieve good economic indicators and job growth.
Discussion
The Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876 and is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Nevertheless, most modern researchers agree that it is outdated and does not meet the modern requirements of people. The most commonly pointed out is that the Texas Constitution “is a long list of specific rules rather than a set of fundamental legal principles for state law.” (Collier, Galatas, & Harrelson-Stephens, 2020). The structure of the Texas Constitution is quite intricate, and its text is one of the longest in the United States. The judicial system in Texas also has a reputation for being one of the most complex in the world. The governor appoints judges to vacant positions, the result is members of the judiciary are constantly looking for funds to participate in election campaigns.
The fact that Texas has achieved economic autonomy and succeeded in creating new jobs cannot be ignored. Grieder calls the Texas governing philosophy “the Texas model” and explains the success of this model through the state’s tax policy — zero personal income tax and low rates on other taxes (2013). However, economic growth cannot be sustainable without investing in infrastructure, and education, ignoring issues of climate change and the income gap between rich and poor. The solution to these problems requires the consolidated efforts of the state and society.
Conclusion
Today, Texas is not the land of cowboys and farmers, it is a modern state with developed industries and a diverse population. Consequently, the present constitution does not respond to the request of society and needs to be changed. At the same time, at the stage of reform, one cannot ignore the history of the State, the individuality and love of freedom of the Texans.
References
Collier, K., Galatas, S., & Harrelson-Stephens, J. (2020). Lone Star Politics: Tradition and Transformation in Texas. CQ Press.
Grieder, E. (2014). Big, hot, cheap, and right: What America can learn from the strange genius of Texas. Public Affairs.
The Preamble of the US Constitution was written with absolutely little consideration. It was not brought up or addressed during the Constitutional Convention’s floor sessions. The final draft of the Constitution was written by Governor Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania, who came up with the idea and registered it at the last minute. The Preamble distilled the objective of the Constitution. The Preamble was devoid of any clear legal significance or intent. Preambles should not be interpreted as granting or restricting authority or a legal precedent. Further, it assisted the Constitution’s drafters in establishing the overall tone of the document. This essay will therefore discuss the purpose of the US government based on the Preamble and why some societies would eventually develop into democracies.
A government is responsible for keeping its residents safe. Still, in dictatorships, where the emphasis is more on upholding the system, and in democracies, where it is on assuring security and preserving citizens’ rights, the purpose of maintaining order and security might differ (Barringer 6). The US government can uphold order and offer protection inside the state by establishing and defending the rule of law. This is referred to as “ensuring domestic Tranquility” in the Preamble to the Constitution. This tranquility involves providing institutions like the criminal justice system, whose job is to defend citizens against everything from bodily injury to property destruction or theft. Another crucial element in sustaining law and order is the civil court system, which the government established as a method for citizens to resolve conflicts.
The government stops assaults on its citizens by individuals or organizations outside its boundaries. The government’s responsibility for protection extends beyond ensuring internal safety. The Preamble is mentioned as “provide for the common defense” (Barringer 7). The state also provides security from outside dangers, which covers both apparent and hidden threats, such as cyber espionage. The US government can wage war and maintain a military for national defense. Engaging in diplomatic activities, ratifying treaties and other international accords, and designating ambassadors to other nations to advance the country and its interests, may also boost global security.
Under the Constitution’s Preamble, the government establishes the laws of the land. In the US, where democracy rules, it adheres to the rule of law, which ensures that everyone is subject to the same set of rules that both protect and constrain them. The Preamble of the Constitution quotes it as “establish Justice” (Barringer 7). According to this idea, nobody living within the country is exempt from the law. Everybody is treated equally under the law. First, it implies that the same rules bind everyone in society. All people have equal legal rights, and the judicial system is tasked with upholding the law equally for every community member. The law’s administrators are subject to the same standards as everyone else. The ruled and those in authority are both treated as equal and responsible.
Many societies have embraced democracy because it offers a framework for some proportional representation-based government, giving individuals the capacity to affect change via participation and influence the powerful to act in the public interest. Democratic societies recognize individuals as equal, a move for citizens’ inclusion in the running of governments, as it promotes peace and stability in a community by avoiding revolts and chaos.
In conclusion, according to the discussion of government purposes, it is evident that the Preamble defines a set of objectives for the successful governance of the nation and its distinct future. Additionally, it has frequently used the Preamble as an indication of the purpose, scope, and origin of the Constitution even though it does not provide any department of the Federal Government any authority. Instead of substantively establishing new powers, its fundamental role is to explain the nature, scope, and applications of the powers the Constitution grants.
Work Cited
Barringer, Richard. “American Democracy and Governance in a Polarized Era.” Maine Policy Review, vol. 30, no. 1, 2021, pp. 6-8.
The peculiarity of the Canadian Constitution is that it includes two parts, namely: written, which consists of separate judicial precedents and legislative acts, and unwritten – in the form of agreements and established legal customs. The most surprising aspect of the Canadian Constitution is that, at a time when in many countries of the world, legislation is regularly rewritten, in Canada, many laws are so deeply entrenched in the Canadian culture that they exist by consensus and do not necessitate written form.
The unwritten part of the Constitution traditionally includes constitutional agreements, judicial precedents, and interpretative acts that originally came from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and then from the Supreme Court of Canada (McWhinney, 2019). The unwritten part of the Constitution of the state is represented by established legal customs and convention agreements. Convention agreements are customs and regulations established by the judicial system. Constitutional conventions include, for example, the appointment of ministers only on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the appointment by the Prime Minister of the head of the party that received a parliamentary majority as a result of democratic elections.
It is also surprising that, when many people believe that legislation should be governed by written documents, the existence of an unwritten Constitution in Canada actually provides some advantages. Thus, society always has the opportunity for a change without the necessity to introduce amendments to the formal Constitution and the state – to adequately regulate the actual constitutional relations. The very existence of an unwritten constitution indicates that some fundamental democratic principles are so firmly entrenched in the political life of the state that there is no need for any special formal document fixing them.
Another astonishing point is that each separate element of the Constitution is connected with others and should be interpreted depending on the structure of the Constitution as a whole, considering its written and unwritten parts. These principles help to interpret the text and define areas of competence, rights and responsibilities, as well as the role of political institutions (McWhinney, 2019). It is equally important that respect for these principles is necessary in the constant process of constitutional development and evolution of the Constitution. The fundamental constitutional principles allow, in certain circumstances, to talk about important legal obligations that represent significant restrictions on the actions of the authorities. These principles may be linked to very abstract and general obligations, or they may be more specific and precise in nature. These principles are not just descriptive; they are also invested with a powerful normative base, and both courts and governments are bound by them (McWhinney, 2019). In other words, in constitutional proceedings, the Court can take into account the unwritten postulates that form the basis of The Constitution of Canada.
References
McWhinney, E. (2019). Canada and the Constitution 1979–1982. University of Toronto Press.
The constitution is sheer genius in my opinion, almost divine. However, there is one core concept of the constitution that is wrong: it’s wrong due to the fact it’s based on concepts and practices of capitalism. The concept that I’m arguing against is “ambition counteracting ambition” or “evil counteracting evil”, this concept is absurd, it’s like saying a lion guard another lion, or gravity counteracting gravity.
The truth of the matter is the one overwhelms the other, or even worse they both will combine and cause almost unending havoc. Now I’m not arguing against the reasoning of this concept, when James Madison said, “Men aren’t angels” I perfectly agreed but we aren’t demons either. What I’m arguing is the absurdity and the usage of this concept, since the people are not really represented.
James Madison being one of the “Founding Fathers ” succeeded in establishing the state of America and its society by working out the key principles implemented in the Constitution. That is why he was known as “Father of the Constitution”. In American society, people believe that the point of somebody’s ambitions can make an impact on his future life.
It is concerned without the exclusion of the fact that many negative aspects are involved in terms of this approach to negatively illustrate the relationships between people in power and those being subordinate to this power. In this paper, the points about James Madison’s concepts are concerned with one of John Locke’s works in order to support the vision of the Constitution on the facts relevant to power in relationships between its branches. “The Second Treatise” by J. Locke is a manifestation of power that is present in nature and can be elaborated in society. This work explains the ways of people’s reorganization into civil society with strict glimpses on the rights which individuals have when meeting the repressions in it. One of the concepts being popular in the epoch of Enlightenment is outlined by the author. It is a “social contract theory”.
In other words, the author states several points as of the men and power. His “state of nature” is a unity of people equal in rights, but, as the author continues, each of the individuals can use the power coordinated by natural law.
This is because “natural law is universal and knows no boundaries of state or country when being carried out.” (Locke 11) Another point of Locke’s work touches upon the fact that the society appeared after making some agreements between people intending the political power emergence. The role of state the author comprises in the work of governments, “for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.” (Locke 4) Though, “the natural liberty” of an individual is argued in the work so that to find out the truth in evaluating the concept of freedom in the state supported by the Constitution in our case.
Looking at the theories which were dominating in the civilized world of the seventeenth till nineteenth centuries historians distinguish a powerful flow of thoughts provided by outstanding people of that epoch, such as John Locke, as was mentioned above, Niccole Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and other philosophers who had greatly evaluated main ideas regarding the state formation and the concept of power in it. The Founding Fathers applied various key points in the treatises of contemporary and previous scientists. They worked out the role of the power separation, in particular. How did it impact the figures in weight of early America? What was the result of their finding outs?
James Madison was impressed and interested in the separation of power with emphasis on the wholeness of social regulations. One point, though, stays unclear when Madison applied to “great compromises” in regulations between three main parts of the power. Each of the spheres of influence should participate in mutual checking out according to Federalist Papers so that to prevent inactivity in corridors of power. In support of this idea, it was considered that if individuals gather to make a contribution to the things of personal needs then a total good is within easy reach in their communities.
Where is the extent of this very compromise observed in everyday life? When talking of relationships between, for instance, barber and his client wanting to be hair-cut it is necessary to adhere to the public health regulations in using the instruments and having the license given preliminarily to the barber by the government. This situation surely shows the fact of compromise in relationships within individuals and state authority. John Locke with regards to above-mentioned approach wrote the following statement:
Every man is born with a double right: first, a right of freedom to his person, which no other man has a power over, but the free disposal of it lies in himself; secondly, a right, before any other man, to inherit with his brethren his father’s goods. (Locke 107)
This common model of relationships also omits the fact of considered surveillance of the rest who belong to the lower layers of the society. Here the middle class is sure to be preferred. Why is the population of a definite country need equality in rights and doings adhered to the law? As Locke pointed out in his “Treatise”, “where law ends, begins tyranny” (Locke 135), but it calls a sort of grave contradiction to this approach because even now in one-man rule countries the laws are even more severe and effective than in present-day democratic countries and still it does regulate the political climate in a country.
In other words, tyranny not always falls into the hands of one man. There is a group of others to support their leader’s ideas. Still, the controversy appears to the idea above. Since the moment when disputes about the democratic trends amongst civilians reached the highest point James Madison underlined in one contemporary newspaper of the eighteenth century the logical explanation of how evil-versus-evil model giving several points as for the concept of officials in the state:
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. (Vile 559)
Here I can clearly figure out the theme of Machiavelli’s treatise “The Prince” where the features of indifference of the ruler should be made out and his role is too heightened to pay simple attention on those being subordinates to him. In fact, it is an autocratic model. Turning to Madison he thought that in theory of political frameworks there should not be “perfect equality in their political rights” (Vile 559), because it will lead to oversimplification of empowerment maintained by the authority and, as a result, lessens the role of the bodies of government.
In contrast, some peoples of Middle East, namely, Kuwait, Bahrain or United Arab Emirates have many of rights and material amenities and, thus, are equalized with regards to one another. Moreover, in these countries autocratic or even theocratic, like in Saudi Arabia, regimes are implemented without any harms for the economies and well-being of people on the whole.
Still let us turn to the times of the Founding Fathers. Great curiosity inspires the question of Thomas Jefferson’s implication to antifederalists. It will be remembered that Jefferson assisted in Madison’s attempts to make influence on Hamilton. Fluent phrases of Washington about equal and pure state with a high level of morality were further opposed by Madison who noted:
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. (Ville 600)
So Madison accompanied with Jefferson saw the goal prescription of democratic society in Socrates’ saying ‘Truth is sprout in discussion’. Discussion in return is a manifestation of diversity in opinions. This intentions as well as Madison’s and his associates inclinations presupposed a great number of the ideas, theories and experience of the eminent politics, philosophers and researchers on public affairs.
In return they created one of the most stable, unless saying the only, Constitution valid and efficient for more than two hundred years. Taking into account all the controversies rose in the US existence of that time it is obvious to mention that the natural principles of governing helped the Founding Fathers and James Madison in person to create a powerful law and infrastructural base with strict and clear delegation of authoritities outlined and performed in the Constitution.
Works cited
Goldie, Mark. “John Locke Icon of Liberty: Mark Goldie Traces the Ways in Which People across the Political Spectrum Have Used and Abused the Ideas of the Philosopher Who Died 300 Years Ago This Month.” History Today. 2004.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Ed. Thomas P. Peardon. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: a comprehensive encyclopedia of America’s founding. ABC-CLIO, 2005.
The central argument in the Medina constitution is the establishment and advancement of pluralism. Against the current Muslim ideologies that discourage pluralism, the Medina constitution is one of the evidences indicating that early Muslims were democratic and embraced pluralism. The pluralistic ideals are spelt out in almost every chapter in the Medina constitution.
The constitution of Medina outlines a series of agreements that were drawn up in the first three years after the Hirja to end the differences between the people of Yatrib and the Muhajirun. As a result, a number of rights as well responsibilities were drafted for the Jews and Muslims in Medina to bring them as Umma, a distinct community from the surrounding pagan society. The constitution instituted an Islamic state.
In addition, the constitution was also drafted to take into action the interests of the emigrants from Mecca spelling out their rights and bond that connects the emigrants with other communities in Medina. The Medina’s constitution also established a free state that in effect was a pluralistic society including Muslims, Jews, and pagans.
The document is partitioned into two segments. The first part stipulates the mutual relations among Muslims while the second part addresses the rules that control inter-communal concerns between the Muslims and the Jews. The Medina’s constitution opens by establishing one community consisting of the emigrants from Mecca and the native Muslims.
The agreement states that the Muslims of Yatrib together with their followers as well as those who labored with them are one community of believers known as the Umma. The provisions assert that the Umma are to make war as one. The believers shall not leave anyone needy among them by failing to disburse his liberation money in a show of kindness. Further, believers are to seek revenge if any Muslim is killed fighting in the way of God.
However, if a Muslim kills a fellow Muslim, then the customary laws of revenge keep on functioning. Moreover, the constitution asserts that believers shall be in opposition to any person who seeks to spread hatred, corruption as well as prejudice among the believers. In other words, any one practicing the vices should be considered a non-believer. Besides, the rules apply to the believers only. The constitution also emphasizes on the equal handling of all Muslims with value and decorum.
The charter disbands the divisions between the inhabitants and the emigrant Muslims thereby presenting principles of equity and fairness to all Muslims irrespective or their origin of birth, tribe or ethnic background. In addition, the constitution does not condone the inhabitants to acquire the status of superiority over the immigrants. On the other hand, the immigrants are not supposed to be considered more important. The constitution also recognizes that the Jews who follow Muslims are not to be mistaken nor shall his foes be helped to carry out an injustice to him.
The indivisibility of unbelievers is emphasized in the constitution. As such, when the believers are struggling in the way of God, the establishment stresses on a single peace made by all believers ensuring justice and equity to all. Moreover, when believers disagree on an issue, the charter stipulates that it have to be submitted to God and Muhammad. In addition, the establishment provides for believers to revenge for the blood of one another shed in the way of God. The constitution further provides for the believers to hit back to whoever found guilty of murdering a believer devoid of any good reason.
The constitution further expands the range of the population that it governs. For instance, the charter asserts that the bond between the members of the Umma exceeds any relation or accords between them and the pagans. Furthermore, the charter recognizes the various religious, cultural, ethnic and linguistic attributes of the Jews just as it recognizes the similar multiplicity within the Muslim fraternity. As such, the constitution acknowledges the principles of equity and fairness amongst all the tribes of the Jews.
The charter goes further to eliminate the notion that some Jewish tribes are better placed. The acknowledgement shows that the constitution embraces equality and self-respect among all the Jews. In addition, the medina constitution contributes immensely in the establishment of a pluralistic society where Medina is not considered as a Muslim society but a community consisting of people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Further, the constitution grants the liberty of faith by stating that the Muslims have their own religious convictions and the Jews have their own faith. In addition, the Jews are expected to fight along their Muslim brothers but covering their own cost. The Medina charter also recognizes that at times of war, the Muslims pay for their own expenses and the Jews bear their expenses as long as there is no betrayal. The charter asserts that Medina was to be haram for its people and Muhammad is its founding holy man.
The responsibilities of Muhammad range from arbitration of disputes to solving the problems of justice within the city as well as relations with outsiders. Further, Muhammad conducted an efficient fight back against Mecca to establish power within Medina. The Jews and the Muslims are not to go to war without the authorization of Muhammad. Through the establishment of a pluralistic state, the constitution acknowledges that Medina is not only a Muslim state but also includes the believers of other faiths. For instance, Medina comprised of the Muslims, the Jews and even pagans.
The charter also recognizes the importance of religious tolerance by leaving every believer to practice its own faith. The constitution recognizes Muhammad as a prophet of God having a divine connection with God in all sides of life. Given these complete assurance in the reality envisaged in Islam, the charter fails to institute a sanctimonious state that forces its citizens to embrace the faith of Islam. Further, the agreement establishes mutual coexistence between the Jews and the Muslims so that each community helps each other during attacks.
Through seeking of shared counsel as well as consultations and development of loyalty between the communities, there is a potential elimination of treachery. Clearly, it is observed that with the charter, the prophet was able to establish his authority in Medina, work out alliances with the neighboring tribes and as a result, carry out an effective struggle against Mecca. The consequent success was the eventual success of Medina.
Bibliography
Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the age of the Caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century. London: Pearson/Longman, 2004.
Debates regarding the interpretation of the constitution have been present for decades and up to date, a unified conclusion remains to be realized. While the grammatical and ideological agreement may be unanimous, there is disagreement in the event of interpretation of the same.
Different scholars and politicians come up with varied interpretations which are guided by the theories they follow or their own personal beliefs. In the end, there has to be an interpretation of the constitution for it to become a governing law. This means interpretation whether good or bad has to be established with the majority carrying the day.
The American constitution, which is one of the world’s oldest, has been subjected to many amendments over the years due to ideological differences from one generation to the next. The feeling of the need for a change in governance in pursuit for a better mode of leadership system has been the driving force for this. This paper will set out to analyze a number of articles which discuss various aspects of the American constitution. The paper will discuss the differing opinions and offer my opinion on the matter of the US constitution.
Overview of the Constitution
The American constitution is arguably the most liberal and complex in the entire world. It differs with the rest of the western constitutions both in its length and the biblical influence. It finds most of its inspiration from the bible since majority of American citizens are Christians. Consequently, its interpretation has been revolving around the unbalanced religious divide.
The debate on the right of individuals to own fire arms prompted by Martin Luther king, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy’s assassinations were a major challenge with regards to interpretation of the constitution. In the second amendment of the constitution as pointed out by Hannan seems to offer a window for the formation of militia groups (4). This is however seen as a self-centered sentiment coined to manipulate the constitution to favor self interest.
In the constitution a lot of individual rights are mentioned and seem to be the top agenda in the composition of its text. The need to respect the original meaning and intention for every law therein is therefore vital. Amendments without considering the originality of the constitution have been the major cause of wrong and misguided interpretation of the law.
The interpretation of the constitution should not be left to the politically influenced judiciary. The high court should not form the highest authority on constitution interpretation rather this should be left to the people. These are national guiding and governance terms and should not be decided by an individual or a group of elite individuals rather should be an all inclusive activity in the best interest of the public.
Social Aspects in the Constitution
Prudently, it is a high level of ignorance to assume that the constitution is the unquestionable supreme power over the people. It also, like many other writings and principles, has a number of limitations with regards to its implementation. This is much evident on the sections that address social interactions. The interpretation of the constitution by different institution in the various fields attracts much attention and criticism.
It would be of much assistance to really trace back to the historical events that influenced the actual drive to come up with the constitution. A study carried out shows that a colossal percentage of the population in America is in the dark with regards to the contents of the constitution. Many do not even have the basic knowledge on law regarding human rights. This however is not blamed on the uninformed citizens but lies squarely in the leadership and the governance of the country.
Holding some practices as illegal on one hand infringes into the right of self acceptance and freedom of choice. However, allowing the same practices like same sex marriages undermine human dignity as far as sexuality and religious teachings are concerned. This calls for the original meaning of the constitution if this kind of duplicity is to be brought to rest. The urgency of this matter is proved by the vote out of office judges who supported gay marriages (Hannan 6).
The only way to find true justice in the current system of governance can only be influenced by the original intention and adherence to the spirit of the constitution. “Liberal legal scholars have tried different approaches in countering this argument” (Hannan 5). Hannan points out that “democratic legitimacy is the measure of a sound constitutional interpretive practice” (5).
Explaining a principle without an understanding of the same can be quit difficult, hence interpretation is the first priority in the road to understanding the true meaning of the constitutional clauses. With this in mind then it becomes easier to come to an agreeable and contented conclusion. One that can have a majority backing from the public domain and not one that seems like a government project forced down the public’s throat. This is an assurance of a democratic form of governance that is of the people by the people and for the people.
Political Aspects in the Constitution
The constitution is a document and a set of laws to govern a nation in managing and guarding its political integrity and economic recourses for the benefit of all. The political elite therefore are charged with the responsibility of being the custodians of the perfect will of the people. The contents of the constitution represent the will of the citizens in general and should be guarded in integrity and in respect of the people’s dignity.
This not withstanding, the people trusted with the custody of this document turn around and abuse the powers vested in them. The elite have turned against the same people who have trusted them with the power to oversee the implementation of the rule of the land. In his book The New Road to Serfdom, Hannan asserts that “no one familiar with the affairs of our government, can have failed to notice how large a proportion of our statesmen appear never to have read the constitution of the united.”
Bad governance that lacks the interest of the electorates at heart is a major set back in the realization of the American dream. Realizing the long-term goal of the constitution goes beyond self-seeking political parties and political alienation for selfish gain. It is the reason of fulfilling the spirit of the constitution that should be the main cause of seeking political responsibilities as it is the sole duty of political leaders.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land and should be treated in due respect and only leaders with this kind of knowledge should be trusted with the responsibility to guard its integrity. Information is power and the elite know what implications this has, especially when the electorate knows their rights. This could possibly be the reason why the government is not keen to ensure the contents of the constitution are known to the public.
Under this misinformation the black people were taken advantage of and denied rights that they deserved by being citizens in the United States of America. Hannan says that the federal government was “made by the white men for the benefit of the white me and their posterity forever” (8). He goes on to point in his book that “there is nothing in the United States constitution that gives the congress, the president or the supreme court the right to declare that white and colored students must attend the same school” (8).
A sign in Boston reads “where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?” Legal education on the clauses of the constitution is paramount for the public to have it broken down by the legal experts on constitutional law. This is primarily due to the fact that the language used in its representation is not easy for the common citizen to understand. Hence, a simpler interpretation is required to have everyone onboard in the pursuit for the democracy.
This is the responsibilities of the government to inform the public and the citizens’ right to be informed. The government is doing very little to achieve this and it has been the trend throughout the subsequent governments. Time has come for the long awaited change of the status quo in response to respect of the rule of law.
Economical Aspects in the Constitution
Economical implications in response to political responsibility are enormous in such a time when the economy is experiencing difficulties in all directions. Political responsibility is key in ensuring a sound economic security and growth as well. Proper planning and innovative policies are what can save a crumpling nation economically.
The tragedy is with all the economic-sensitive provisions in the constitution, our government and political leaders are so busy pursuing their own personal gains at the expense of their constitutional responsibility. Economical Growth therefore seems like an unachievable milestone where else it is out of neglect in duty that the economy is subjected to this kind of set backs.
Corruption is a major disappointment and it greatly undermines the growth of an economy. The political elite are more than ever involved in corrupt dealings that rob our economy of the precious remittances that finance the public utilities. As Hannan puts it, “part of the problem might appear to be the distance between our location and theirs.” It would prove to be an unyielding endeavor to realize any significant economical steps ahead if the effort does not emanate from the leaders.
Our leaders are required by law to safeguard our sovereignty and our national resources. But that, all along, has not been the case as the same leaders are in a rush to grab as much wealth as they can from the public. Instead of working towards the benefit of all they are only concerned with their own selfish ambitions.
The constitution gives all the citizens in the United States of America equal chances and equal opportunity to benefit from the resources found in the country without any discriminatory procedures. But the elite have created their own discriminative procedures that deliberately sideline other citizens from the free benefit of being a citizen in the United States of America. This is brought about by the introduction of a new political order of “threats false rumors and extremist rhetoric” (Crain 11).
These turn of events in leadership has brought the obvious downplay of the rule of law as the leadership has been accused to be involved in the funding of insurgence. This is done blindly as a way of acquiring power but has proven to be a time bomb in waiting in the long-run.
This destabilizes the economy as corrupt and unlawful operations are given a blind eye as the insurgences work hand in hand with he custodians of the law. This in the long-run will cause a major break down in the economy and recovery may never be realized as fast as the breakdown happens.
Concerns
The common citizen is the main shareholder in the political arena yet he or she is the most neglected by the same people who promised to provide fair leadership. In the light of the constitution, the common citizen does not understand the complex use of legal terminologies. What is the government doing about this and what measures have they taken to ensure that the American citizen is well informed and that he or she understands the contents of the document.
Does the government take this issue as a priority to inform its public on the governing law and the protection abound in the constitution? Is it in their interest to have the public taught by legal experts about the interpretation of this law? The government must take it upon itself to ensure there is a legal explanation and original unbiased interpretation of the law for the good and benefit of the public who double-up as the government’s employer.
The political elite must realize their responsibilities and be faithful to keep their end of the bargain. It is very disappointing to be let down by the same government that one has trusted to take good care of the nation. A country that lacks an economical future is a country in trouble and lacks security. Financial security in a country is vital as it influences many different avenues that attract economical growth.
Financial security is a sure way to attract investors in the country and this translate to social and economical benefits with other countries. This is an endeavor to any reasonable government that has its citizen’s welfare in mind. Formulating trade laws that favor economic growth should be in every government’s consideration all through revising them more often to cease any upcoming advantage.
As ascertained by Crain, replacing the three pence duty on foreign molasses with a one penny duty was a relief to importers who would bribe at just about the same price (14). This brought to halt the loss of funds in the black market and eliminated smuggling. There has to be a significant link between the politically elite and the electorate. This is important if a mutual benefit is to be realized otherwise it will be just a matter of exploiting the electorate in the guise of unfulfilled promises.
Smuggling and illegal trade is a major hurt to the smooth running of the economy hence a threat to its growth as well. Government’s involvement in the business industry is paramount for traders as the government has the power to cushion traders during harsh economic times. If traders are not protected they stand to loose a lot in their merchandise and may be unable to comeback to business after the tough times are gone.
Development in any country depends on the commercial stability in the country hence it must be in the interest of the government to protect its business community. This is done by creating amiable business environment for business to thrive. Nothing gives a country the sense of security like financial security does and the United States of America is not different. The leadership has to embrace the challenge and give its citizens the security they so yarn for.
The constitution is the pillar of a nation and must be regarded as so in dignity and the law therein upheld and obeyed to the latter. The constitution is clear that no individual or institution is above its grip. Upholding the constitution is a gesture of submission and respect to our country’s sovereignty (Brooks 24). The elite living in harmony with the spirit of the constitution is the guiding principle in the pursuit for democracy.
It all begins with a political drive to reinforce policies that with influence growth in the entire country. With such systems in place, growth is inevitable in a receptive population in terms of investments and business interactions. The elite are elected to oversee the development of the people and to reinforce the will of the people. If the will of the people is respected then the running of the country’s economic affairs is in good hands and one can only project growth.
Better information as noted by Lepore, is key for development and mutual understanding in the society. Should this virtue lack, then trouble strikes-in in a way we might find it difficult to handle the repercussions. In the United States of America every one longs for better economic and financial dawn (Lepore 25). But this has been like a dream as the efforts towards achieving this are halted by the policies in place and misrepresentation of the will of the people.
In the wake of these tough economic times it is vital to have proper policies in place to maximize on possible chances to better our national income. This can not happen with the current policies and misinterpretation of the constitution. Proper interpretation must be provided to the public and the judiciary must have it right in the courts form free and fair justice to be experienced.
Conclusion
The constitution is an important document since it provides the basis upon which the country is governed. It is the only document that equalizes the citizen in the United States of America. The spirit of the constitution and its original intention was for the good of the people. However, the will of the people have significantly been ignored and replaced with self driven ambitions by those in power and assumed custodians of the law (BBC 21).
This is unfortunate but can be corrected by casting of votes to responsible and trusted people who have the will of the people at heart always. These are the kind of leaders who can lead the country into better economical heights with dignity and respect to the original spirit of the constitution.
In my opinion, leadership is the main drive to any achievements; be it economical or even political. When good leadership structures are achieved development is automatic. At all times leaders must be on the forefront to champion developments and better management of resources for the benefit of all. This is the spirit of statesmanship and good will.
Works Cited
BBC. Us constitution read aloud in House of Representatives. 2011.
The peculiarity of the law system in the United States is a difficult thing due to the versatile nature of different precedents of the English-American law system. There are too many precedents that US Courts observed and provided trials. Some of them were with direct implementation of trial actions due to classical cases of murders, felonies, manslaughters, etc. Today the society needs new boundaries for living and feeling the protection of the law in their everyday lives which do not disturb physically others or do not hurt them. The social issues of America seem to be more difficult as they appear in public discussion. Still, such aspects as race, culture, gender, and ethnicity play a great role in disturbing communities in any state of the US. The historical framework of America does include those times when slavery was a core element of Americans’ policy, trade, and economy. Racial segregation and discrimination were even harder and harsher after World War II. Such examples of the Main Law of the country and the Declaration of Peoples’ Rights violation as in the case of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were terrible for the equality of rights between white and black parts of the American society. The challenges of those being oppressed became stronger and stronger when injustice occupied even local law bases of the states with absurd trials having aimed to blame and punish those who once had to decide to use his/her right for a free choice of a minion of fortune.
The story of the Lovings’ couple with the mixed color of skin (Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Jeter a black woman) occurred in the late 1950s. Their location at that time was in Virginia State, Caroline County. They married in the District of Columbia according to the local laws of this administrative-territorial unit of the country. After a short period of living together, they were charged for violation of Virginia law prescription as of the restraint for interracial marriages. The jury of the Circuit Court of Caroline County sentenced a punishment of one year in jail. This story has a continuation, but this paper is aimed to work out all pros and cons of this case and outlines other such-like social issues supported by the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
First of all, it is useful to work out the essence of the above-mentioned amendments in their law nature and prerequisites appointed. One should recognize before the discussion the highest role of the Constitution, as the Main Law of the country, and its priority above separated statements prescribed by some people showing their social, political or economic interests. In other words, it is a universal document for resolving internal law cases. Though, the amendments needed can be briefly displayed in the following way:
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. (The United States Constitution 1997)
The straightforward emphasis is made due to the entire principles of democracy and free society full of government’s protection by means of The Constitution and laws adhered to it respectively. These three amendments presuppose the relational development of peoples’ differences in religion, a form of oral or writing expression, location. These aspects are encompassed by the main right of a citizen, which is pointed out by the 14th amendment. The wholeness of direct “instructions” as for the code of laws signed at the very beginning of the country’s formation by Congress is the indisputable background in the circles of the American jurisprudence.
In the country at large, however, the idea of a bill of rights received vociferous support, as did a further demand from those seeking reassurance that powers not bestowed upon the central government by the Constitution should remain with the states or the people rather than be engrossed by the new government. (Smith 30)
Nevertheless, turning back to the problem under analysis, it is totally outrageous for a sound-minded person to consider Virginia State’s laws as of interracial marriages rational. In this prospect, undoubtedly the idea of thoughts expression without applying to the opinions of other people responsible for legislation and representation of the interests of wide and varied communities is critical because of lack of an argument parts clarification, adjustment and foreground. (Balkin 2007) One point from Virginia local code of laws discredits the law system of the US on the whole and the rights of Americans, namely:
“Punishment for marriage. — If any white person intermarries with a colored person, or any colored person intermarries with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary {**1820} for not less than one nor more than five years.” (Loving et ux. v. Virginia 1967)
There are several points for and against this prescription. Three amendments serve to be in favor of Lovings because of the direct points of their rights’ violation. The point is that the Circuit Court of Carolina County propped up against the statement of the 10th amendment which points out “Powers of the States and People.” (The United States Constitution 1997) Three amendments against one – this correlation bear in mind the idea of more arguments in Lovings’ favor. The most reasonable fact is that such “crime” was not committed in the area of the state (Lovings married in accordance with the code of laws maintained in the District Columbia). This fact opposes the accepted and put in active legal practice due to the lack of data about the location of the marriage. In return, this projects the incompleteness of corpus delicti for further judicial investigation.
The story of Lovings inspires with fortitude and succession of actions which the couple had demonstrated. This precedent gained more attention in the 1960s due to the process of the Sexual Revolution and the urges of sexual minorities to legitimate same-sex marriages and prove such social events which were prohibited for a long period of time due to public opinion and the sense of moral. The question is still debatable as to whether such cases are a matter of civil rights?
Facts are stubborn things, and there is no way out to oppose the law when there are statements and articles standing for human rights in the US. Hence, the right of two same-sex persons is possible when again applying to the 14th amendment, stating that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (The United States Constitution 1997) Here there is no promotion of any harm towards other people, but traditionally the morality does not consider such attempts of freedom expression to be right. The moral side of the issue has a religious background as well tending to point out the wickedness of such initiatives. This presupposes a great obstacle that stands in the way of minorities striving to obtain suchlike right to choose a helpmate as traditionally oriented people have.
For further discussion, it is important to estimate the effects of same-sex marriages. Here the “ad absurdum” method can be helpful. So, if such marriages were legalized, people would follow the functions maintained in the concept of “family institute.” This could lead to more state control over legitimate couples. On the other hand, it would provide the execution of the right of a citizen.
Logically, however, an analysis of marriage should begin by examining the legal relationship that unites the two individuals who marry one another, not their relationships with third parties. When two individuals marry, they enter into a legally binding relationship with each other. (Hohengarten 1495)
Actually, marriage is a sphere of harmonious engagement which needs a legal framework to be provided in order to execute law principles and requirements for better protection of all layers of a community with regards to peoples’ preferences in social relationships. When comparing this issue with that of Lovings one cannot but agree that the roots are the same and have their beginning in the sphere of citizens’ rights in democratic countries. Interracial marriages are a societal problem, and same-sex marriages are definitely concerned with the moral aspect of the discussion. Both do not, in fact, represent terrific dangers for society. It is a sort of lifestyle. Moreover, it is rather courageous to move against the publically determined way of thinking, doing and behaving. The new time dictates new requirements and standpoints to be achieved. Foolishness according to racial discrimination in many states of America and unwilling attitudes of the majority of people to recognize the minority is still progressing providing the United States with a delay in social development. Morality is constant and there is nothing to do with it, but the Constitution, however, could not be credible and reliable in its principal propositions unless the amendments were adopted. Nonetheless, the situation is forced due to the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal as for marriage peculiarities, namely:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. (22) (Cited in Wilkinson III 545)
This obstacle tends to be related to the biblical standpoint about marriage and the creation of the world and man, in particular. Frankly speaking, society cannot deny those people being of “non-traditional format.” Otherwise, it would be inhumane and cruel from its side. Moreover, it is a sort of seizure provided by people living in the society supported by the government when such innocent people without any inclination of negative intentions towards breaking the law suffer from harsh injustice. As I see, the amendments are quite weighty tools for finding judicial background in the place where law temporally loses its power and concerning points due to someone’s personal and separated idea.
Thus, the case of Lovings and the issue of same-sex marriages are those problems that still become unresolved and striking for the societal groups of people tending to work out the issue by virtue of better making out peaceful and positive intentions. The violation of citizens’ rights is the core problem of the paper which contradicts the adopted idea of freedom for expression of various feelings and social states which are not taken for granted. The legislative branch of power should lend an ear to the sphere of personal requirements within large groups of people preserving their vision of life, principles, and priorities of subculture so that to follow the way of reformation and elaboration of democratic fundamentals widely promoted in the United States of America.
Works cited
Balkin, Jack M. “Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption.” Constitutional Commentary 24.2 (2007): 427+.
Hohengarten, William M. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Right of Privacy.” Yale Law Journal 103.6 (1994): 1495-1531.