Category: Constitution

The rule of law is one of three important constitutional pillars that form the constitution. As has an uncodified constitution, rule of law asserts the supremacy of law and aims to prevent arbitrary use of power as well as to protect citizens’ lives and property. It is difficult to define as the difficulty stems from the fact that the rule of law means different things to different people. Different legal theorists contend with different conceptions. Joseph Raz purports a formal conception that looks at the form and enforcement procedure, Lord Bingham sits on the substantive side and argues that the rule of law should go further and consider fundamental rights, whereas Dworkin sits in the middle. This essay will highlight these conceptions in that order and evaluate Raz`s statement.

The rule of law, although mentioned and recognized in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, does not have a clear definition and therefore has been subjected to proposals of multiple definitions by a multitude of legal theorists who disagree on the content of this constitutional principle. It functions as a measure of good governance, fair creation of laws, and just application of the law. It upholds an independent judiciary and equal access to courts.

The formal conceptions propose that law must be specified in the form, applied, and enforced by 4 central features which cohere and overlap: legality, certainty, equality, and access to justice and rights. Furthermore, it does not look at the content of the law, whether it is good or bad law, but sets important standards and directions, therefore it is viewed that if the law was passed in the appropriate process, then it is valid and enforceable. Theorists such as Dicey, Hayek (before his change of heart), or Raz are of such a view. On one side, the formalist conception is deeply entrenched in legal positivism and is ultimately concerned with the law as it is. Conversely, the substantive conception, linked with natural law theory is concerned with law as it should be.

To professor Joseph Raz, the rule of law was a political ideal that a legal system may lack or may possess to a greater or lesser degree it is not to be confused with human rights of any kind of respect. Therefore equality, justice, and democracy should be separated from the rule of law. The debate that Raz sparks concern the core meaning of the concept which focuses on rules and the correct procedures staying neutral to the content of the law. If moral qualities were to be considered then the rule of law would lose its function and independence and would no longer be law but a meaningless social philosophy. The fact that these qualities are perceived to be meaningless establishes Raz`s indifference to moral virtues as well as the instrumentality and shallowness of the formal conception, hence why it is also referred to as the thin approach. He further contends that laws can be morally questionable and that a non-democratic legal system, based on the denial of human rights, extensive poverty, racial segregation, sexual inequalities, and religious persecution may, in principle, conform to the requirements of the rule of law Raz likens the sharpness of a knife to the rule of law. To Raz, as long as the knife is of good quality then it does not matter what it is used for, whether it is surgery or murder, he talks about the efficacy of the rule of law in terms of validity and enforceability. He is not concerned with what the law is used for, he is concerned that as long as it is done the correct way, interestingly, it does not matter. Moreover, this approach can create moral issues itself, take the laws of the Nazis as an example, they were fascist and discriminatory if rule of law does not concern itself with even democracy then how can it protect all citizens. Raz is far from concerned about whether the conception allows for tyranny and oppression.

The substantive conception proposes that a system of rules is not sufficient to make or govern law, it needs to consider moral qualities. If the law goes against these moral qualities, it cannot be valid or enforceable. In comparison to the formal conception, it is therefore concerned with whether the law is indeed good or bad and focuses on the protection of fundamental rights coupling with those formal theories, not opposing them. Theorists such as Bingham and Fuller are of such understanding. Ultimately, the substantive approach is concerned with what the law ought to be. Relying purely on legal authority is not enough as law cannot be truly governed without a conscience.

Lord Bingham in his approach has tried to loosen the formal theory of the rule of law. He recognizes the importance of the form but goes further to say that there are higher standards that should be applied for the holistic good of citizens. These ideas originate from natural law which refers to a set of rules said to be derived from nature and reason, which have an inherent moral content. The rule of law does depend on an unspoken but fundamental bargain between the individual and the state, the governed and the governor, by which both sacrifice a measure of the freedom and power that they would otherwise enjoy. Two points in particular out of the eight that he provides have a greater emphasis on fundamental rights, the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights and the adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.

Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin holds both conceptions to be important and provides a rule book conception as well as a right-based conception as he says there must be a correct process but it has to be linked to political morality. Citizens have moral rights and duties with respect to one another, and political rights against the state as a whole. It insists that these moral and political rights be recognized in positive law, so that they may be enforced upon the demand of individual citizens through courts or other judicial institutions. He has parity with Bingham as he also, within his 8 principles, provides formal as well as substantive elements.

The formal approach considers the importance of the rule of law and that it is a powerful principle of the constitution, so powerful that it should not be infringed by moral views, therefore leaving no discretion to the content but rather focusing on the authority of this principle, that it does not matter what the law is, good or bad, but that it does possess this power to be unquestionable. The argument for Nazi law can be perceived in a way that deeply depends on the constitution and the values that it holds. In a democratic country, it can be easily predicted that laws will naturally hold democratic and moral values therefore it does not matter whether the rule of law is only formal conceptually. However, it can be noted that Raz`s statement is only of significance when it is viewed from a formal perspective. Although, even when looking through this lens, it appears to be contradictory in its own approach. He states that the key virtue of the rule of law is to protect individual freedom. However, he himself admits that this freedom is limited. His view does not provide any protection from oppressive laws nor does it express the desire to. It can be said that if the procedure of law-making and application of it is correct, then there is no need to consider the outcomes, the effects that it may have on society in terms of morality, or any violation of human rights. If laws are made without democracy, as he states that it is to be separated from the rule of law, how can they be made fairly? The formal conception ignores the human rights of citizens who make up a constitution, without its people, would not be what it is today.

Judges, in their role as journeymen judgment-makers, are not free to dismiss the rule of law as meaningless verbiage, the jurisprudential equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, even if they were inclined to do so. They would be bound to construe a statute so that it did not infringe on an existing constitutional principle if it were reasonably possible to do so.

Expanding on the above point, the substantive conception protects human rights regardless of whether a constitution is democratic, therefore if a democratic country had a change of heart or ideals, then the rights of individuals would still be protected if the law started to go bad. When there are no substantive components, laws themselves end up not being fair. Lord Bingham stated:

A state which savagely repressed or persecuted sections of its people could not in my view be regarded as observing the rule of law, even if the transport of the persecuted minority to the concentration camp or the compulsory exposure of female children on the mountainside were the subject of detailed laws duly enacted and scrupulously observed.

This essay has considered all conceptions of the rule of law, critically analyzing the formal and the substantive approach, favoring the latter. Raz`s statement holds value only so far as the formal approach goes. The extension of these ideals through consideration of fundamental human rights proposes a grander picture, an honestly more fair view of the rule of law. If a formal approach can go as far as looking at the process, it makes sense for the principal to go further and consider the outcomes and its position in the constitution when considering the people of the constitution.

The causes of the peasants ‘uprising, known as the Nice Fear of 1789, were the peasants’ impatience and desire to demand matters in their own hands because they were furious that they were forced to accommodate the chief of the taxation, the church tithes, and also the nobles who abused their privileges affecting their lives. The cause that pushed them over the sting to begin the uprisings was the rise in the bread price. The result of the rebellion was the burning of feudal records, the looting of neighboring lands, and, most notably, the state Assembly having no choice but to issue a decree on August 4, 1789, that abolished all noble privileges including the hunting rights, the fees for legal cases judged in an exceedingly lord’s court, forcing peasants to figure on roads, together with the abolishment of tithes.

The documents of the National Assembly were the August Decree, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and also the Constitution of 1791. The Enlightenment ideas are reflected in all like within the August Decree, the National Assembly revokes the nobility’s privileges and serfdom over the peasants during which they violated their natural rights, especially liberty by Locke still because of the economic ideas of Adam Smith of abolishing guilds. The freeing of the serfs reflected Diderot’s ideas. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen reflects the Enlightenment ideas of the government protecting the people’s natural rights of life, liberty, and property from Locke still because the general will of the people being taken into consideration by law coming from Rousseau. the liberty of expression and religion within the document shows the ideals of Voltaire. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy reflects Enlightenment ideas of secularizing the state and looking forward to the government rather than faith and also the church by secularizing religion and creating a national church. The Constitution of 1791 reflected Enlightenment ideas by making France into a constitutional monarchy with the center class controlling the government as advocated by Montesquieu.

The Parisian women furthered the Revolution by marching 12 miles from Paris to Versailles on October 5, 1789, to protest the shortages and also the rising cost of bread. The ladies invaded the homes of the royals and killed the bodyguards to appear for Marie Antoinette which made the house move to the Tuileries. Their march ended up forcing Louis XVI to sign a decree that guaranteed bread at an affordable price still because the women made the National Assembly intimidated by them. By the house moving to Paris, they saw the poverty of the peasants and destruction firsthand.

France ended up in foreign wars in the midst of their revolution because foreign rulers feared the Revolution which it’d spread when the house was arrested. Especially the monarchs of Austria and Prussia didn’t just like the arresting of the house so they issued the Declaration of Pillnitz to point out to the legislature that they were willing to intervene. Since the legislature was passed by the young, radical, and less cautious Jacobins than those of the National Assembly, they foolishly declared war on Austria because they wanted to be those to declare war rather than getting war declared on them. After that, Prussia sided with Austria which caused many battles. After Prussia had been stopped, it opened France to expansion and as they did the tensions escalated and also the National Convention declared war on Britain, the Dutch Republic, and Spain while at war with Austria and Prussia.

The type of balance the declaration attempts to strike between the rights and responsibilities of citizens is that the govt must and can protect the rights of the people as long as the people don’t benefit from the law or if the govt is in an exceedingly desperate state. For instance, it gives people the liberty of expression and religion as long as what they are doing isn’t harmful to others or disrupts the peace. Also, the govt will protect the natural rights of liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression, but within the case scenario of the govt needing one’s property, it’ll be compensated. Additionally, the declaration attempts to strike the balance between the rights and responsibilities of citizens when it involves taxes. They acknowledge that the citizen must pay taxes to keep the government running, but they’re going to not be taken advantage of and taxed over what they will pay. Additionally, it offers the rights of the citizens in criminal proceedings but affirms the fact that they’re going to be punished accordingly for his or her actions if they commit against the law or an officer that violates the proper proceedings is punished. The balance the declaration reaches is that citizens should and can be guaranteed their rights, however so as for that constitution to be kept, they need to follow through on their responsibilities.

Introduction

The existence of slavery in the United States has been a dark chapter in the nation’s history. While the Constitution is revered as a foundational document that outlines principles of freedom and equality, it also included provisions that allowed for the continuation of slavery. In this essay, we will explore the reasons why the Constitution permitted the practice of slavery, analyzing political, economic, and social factors that influenced this decision.

I. Compromises at the Constitutional Convention

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates from the northern and southern states engaged in intense debates and negotiations. The issue of slavery emerged as a significant point of contention, with the northern states advocating for its abolition, while the southern states sought to protect their economic interests and the institution of slavery. To secure the support of the southern states and ensure the ratification of the Constitution, compromises were made.

II. Economic Considerations

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the southern states relied heavily on the labor-intensive plantation system, which was sustained by the institution of slavery. The southern economy was deeply entwined with the production of cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, and rice, all of which were cultivated by enslaved labor. Many southern delegates insisted on protecting their economic interests and feared that the abolition of slavery would disrupt their agricultural practices and jeopardize their prosperity.

III. Political Balance and Representation

Another factor that influenced the Constitution’s allowance of slavery was the need to maintain a delicate balance between the northern and southern states. The southern states were concerned about their representation in the newly established federal government. They argued that if enslaved individuals were not counted as part of the population, their political power would be diminished. As a compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise was included in the Constitution, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining both representation in Congress and taxation.

IV. Preservation of National Unity

The Constitutional Convention was a crucial moment in the early years of the United States, with the framers aiming to establish a strong and united nation. The issue of slavery was a deeply divisive one, and the framers recognized the potential for disunity and even the dissolution of the Union if a strong stance against slavery was taken. By allowing slavery to continue, the framers sought to maintain unity among the states and secure the cooperation needed to establish a functioning government.

V. Societal Attitudes and Norms

The acceptance of slavery in the Constitution can also be attributed to the prevailing societal attitudes and norms of the time. Slavery was deeply ingrained in the fabric of American society, with many people holding racist beliefs that justified the subjugation of African Americans. These societal attitudes influenced the delegates’ perspectives and influenced the compromises made during the drafting of the Constitution.

Conclusion

While the Constitution is often hailed as a landmark document that laid the foundation for democracy and human rights, it also contained provisions that allowed for the continuation of slavery. The compromises made during the Constitutional Convention, driven by economic considerations, political balance, the preservation of national unity, and societal attitudes, shaped the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution. While the Constitution ultimately provided a framework for change, including the eventual abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment, it is essential to acknowledge and understand the complex factors that contributed to its initial allowance. By examining this history, we can gain insight into the challenges and complexities of creating a just and equitable society.

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787, is widely regarded as one of the most important documents in American history. However, during its creation, it faced significant controversy and debate. This essay will argue that the Constitution was a controversial document even as it was being written due to disagreements over issues such as representation, the balance of power, and the protection of individual rights.

Representation

One of the major points of contention during the drafting of the Constitution was the issue of representation. Smaller states were concerned about being overshadowed by larger states in the legislative branch. This led to the creation of the Great Compromise, which established a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The compromise was necessary to gain the support of smaller states, but it sparked debates over the fair distribution of power between states.

Balance of Power

Another area of contention was the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Some delegates favored a strong central government, believing it was necessary to maintain order and prevent the fragmentation of the country. However, others, particularly Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong central government would infringe upon individual liberties and erode state sovereignty. These concerns led to the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, explicitly reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.

Protection of Individual Rights

The absence of a clear statement protecting individual rights within the original Constitution was met with opposition. Many argued that the document lacked sufficient safeguards for personal freedoms and liberties. This criticism prompted the demand for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. It was through this process that the first ten amendments were eventually incorporated, ensuring protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the right to a fair trial.

Slavery and Compromises

Perhaps the most significant and contentious issue during the drafting of the Constitution was the institution of slavery. Southern states, reliant on slave labor, sought to protect their economic interests and preserve the legality of slavery. Northern states, on the other hand, expressed growing concerns about the morality and ethics of slavery. The compromise reached was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. This compromise exemplified the deep divisions over the issue of slavery and highlighted the moral conflict present within the document itself.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States was a controversial document even as it was being written due to disagreements over representation, the balance of power, the protection of individual rights, and the institution of slavery. The compromise and negotiations that took place during its drafting demonstrate the complex nature of the challenges faced by the framers. While the Constitution was ultimately ratified and has served as the foundation of American democracy, it is essential to recognize the controversies and compromises that shaped its creation. The ongoing debates and interpretations of the Constitution throughout history reinforce the importance of critical analysis and the need to continually address and reconcile the issues that arose during its formation.

Introduction:

John Locke, an influential Enlightenment thinker, played a significant role in shaping the political philosophy behind the United States Constitution. His ideas on natural rights, social contract, and limited government had a profound impact on the framers of the Constitution, laying the foundation for the principles and structure of the American system of government. This essay critically examines the influence of John Locke’s political theories on the Constitution, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of his ideas in relation to the formation and interpretation of the Constitution.

Body:

Natural Rights:

John Locke’s concept of natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, greatly influenced the framers of the Constitution. The idea that individuals possess inherent rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government is reflected in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which guarantees fundamental freedoms and protections to citizens. Locke’s emphasis on the protection of individual rights aligns with the Constitution’s commitment to safeguarding individual liberties. However, critics argue that Locke’s narrow focus on property rights may not fully capture the broader range of rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process.

Social Contract:

Locke’s theory of the social contract posits that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This idea influenced the framers’ belief in popular sovereignty and the principle that the government should serve the interests of the people. The Constitution, with its emphasis on representative democracy and the separation of powers, reflects this notion of a social contract between the government and the people. However, some critics argue that the Constitution falls short in fully embodying a true social contract, as it was drafted primarily by an elite group of white, wealthy men and did not initially grant equal rights and representation to all segments of society.

Limited Government:

Locke advocated for a limited government that operates within defined boundaries and respects the rights of individuals. This principle is evident in the Constitution’s establishment of a system of checks and balances, dividing powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Locke’s emphasis on limited government aims to protect individuals from potential tyranny. However, critics argue that the Constitution’s interpretation and application of limited government have been subject to debate and evolving understandings over time. Some believe that the expansion of federal power and the potential for abuse have challenged the original intent of limited government.

Property Rights and Economic Influence:

Locke’s emphasis on property rights and the importance of private ownership had a lasting impact on the economic aspects of the Constitution. The protection of property rights is reflected in the Constitution’s provisions regarding contract enforcement and the protection of intellectual property. However, critics contend that this focus on property rights can lead to inequalities and neglect other important social and economic issues, such as wealth distribution and social justice.

Conclusion:

John Locke’s political theories had a profound influence on the framers of the United States Constitution. His ideas on natural rights, social contract, and limited government shaped the foundation of American democracy. While Locke’s theories provide a valuable framework for understanding the Constitution’s principles, it is important to critically analyze their limitations and consider the evolving interpretation and application of the Constitution over time. By engaging in a critical examination of Locke’s ideas in relation to the Constitution, we can gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both and foster ongoing discussions about the role of government, individual rights, and the pursuit of a just society.

Introduction:

Popular sovereignty is a fundamental principle embedded in the United States Constitution that establishes the power and authority of the government as deriving from the consent of the governed. This informative essay explores the concept of popular sovereignty in the Constitution, its significance, and its impact on democratic governance.

Body:

Definition and Meaning:

Popular sovereignty refers to the idea that ultimate political power resides with the people. It is the belief that the government’s authority is derived from and subject to the will of the people. The Constitution establishes this principle by entrusting the power to make decisions and govern to the citizens through their elected representatives.

Influence of the Enlightenment:

The concept of popular sovereignty can be traced back to the Enlightenment period, which emphasized individual rights, reason, and the pursuit of the common good. Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated for the idea that political power should be vested in the people. Their ideas influenced the framers of the Constitution and played a significant role in the inclusion of popular sovereignty as a core principle.

Representation and Elections:

The Constitution establishes a representative democracy, whereby the people exercise their sovereignty through the election of public officials. Through regular elections, citizens have the power to choose their representatives at various levels of government, from local to national. These elected officials are accountable to the people and are entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions and enacting policies on behalf of the public.

Amendments and Constitutional Interpretation:

Another manifestation of popular sovereignty in the Constitution is the provision for amendments. The Constitution can be amended through a deliberate and democratic process, allowing for changes to reflect the evolving will of the people. This mechanism ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the citizens.

Balancing Popular Will and Minority Rights:

While popular sovereignty places importance on the will of the majority, the Constitution also upholds the rights and protections of minority groups. The Constitution includes safeguards, such as the Bill of Rights, which protects individual liberties and prevents the tyranny of the majority. This balance between majority rule and minority rights is a critical aspect of democratic governance and reflects the commitment to inclusivity and equal protection under the law.

Conclusion:

Popular sovereignty is a foundational principle of the United States Constitution, emphasizing the power and authority of the government derived from the consent of the governed. Through elections, representation, and the provision for amendments, the Constitution ensures that the voice and will of the people are at the core of democratic governance. The concept of popular sovereignty reflects the democratic ideals and principles upon which the United States was founded and continues to guide the nation’s political system to this day.

The rule of law is one of three important constitutional pillars that form the constitution. As has an uncodified constitution, rule of law asserts the supremacy of law and aims to prevent arbitrary use of power as well as to protect citizens’ lives and property. It is difficult to define as the difficulty stems from the fact that the rule of law means different things to different people. Different legal theorists contend with different conceptions. Joseph Raz purports a formal conception that looks at the form and enforcement procedure, Lord Bingham sits on the substantive side and argues that the rule of law should go further and consider fundamental rights, whereas Dworkin sits in the middle. This essay will highlight these conceptions in that order and evaluate Raz`s statement.

The rule of law, although mentioned and recognized in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, does not have a clear definition and therefore has been subjected to proposals of multiple definitions by a multitude of legal theorists who disagree on the content of this constitutional principle. It functions as a measure of good governance, fair creation of laws, and just application of the law. It upholds an independent judiciary and equal access to courts.

The formal conceptions propose that law must be specified in the form, applied, and enforced by 4 central features which cohere and overlap: legality, certainty, equality, and access to justice and rights. Furthermore, it does not look at the content of the law, whether it is good or bad law, but sets important standards and directions, therefore it is viewed that if the law was passed in the appropriate process, then it is valid and enforceable. Theorists such as Dicey, Hayek (before his change of heart), or Raz are of such a view. On one side, the formalist conception is deeply entrenched in legal positivism and is ultimately concerned with the law as it is. Conversely, the substantive conception, linked with natural law theory is concerned with law as it should be.

To professor Joseph Raz, the rule of law was a political ideal that a legal system may lack or may possess to a greater or lesser degree it is not to be confused with human rights of any kind of respect. Therefore equality, justice, and democracy should be separated from the rule of law. The debate that Raz sparks concern the core meaning of the concept which focuses on rules and the correct procedures staying neutral to the content of the law. If moral qualities were to be considered then the rule of law would lose its function and independence and would no longer be law but a meaningless social philosophy. The fact that these qualities are perceived to be meaningless establishes Raz`s indifference to moral virtues as well as the instrumentality and shallowness of the formal conception, hence why it is also referred to as the thin approach. He further contends that laws can be morally questionable and that a non-democratic legal system, based on the denial of human rights, extensive poverty, racial segregation, sexual inequalities, and religious persecution may, in principle, conform to the requirements of the rule of law Raz likens the sharpness of a knife to the rule of law. To Raz, as long as the knife is of good quality then it does not matter what it is used for, whether it is surgery or murder, he talks about the efficacy of the rule of law in terms of validity and enforceability. He is not concerned with what the law is used for, he is concerned that as long as it is done the correct way, interestingly, it does not matter. Moreover, this approach can create moral issues itself, take the laws of the Nazis as an example, they were fascist and discriminatory if rule of law does not concern itself with even democracy then how can it protect all citizens. Raz is far from concerned about whether the conception allows for tyranny and oppression.

The substantive conception proposes that a system of rules is not sufficient to make or govern law, it needs to consider moral qualities. If the law goes against these moral qualities, it cannot be valid or enforceable. In comparison to the formal conception, it is therefore concerned with whether the law is indeed good or bad and focuses on the protection of fundamental rights coupling with those formal theories, not opposing them. Theorists such as Bingham and Fuller are of such understanding. Ultimately, the substantive approach is concerned with what the law ought to be. Relying purely on legal authority is not enough as law cannot be truly governed without a conscience.

Lord Bingham in his approach has tried to loosen the formal theory of the rule of law. He recognizes the importance of the form but goes further to say that there are higher standards that should be applied for the holistic good of citizens. These ideas originate from natural law which refers to a set of rules said to be derived from nature and reason, which have an inherent moral content. The rule of law does depend on an unspoken but fundamental bargain between the individual and the state, the governed and the governor, by which both sacrifice a measure of the freedom and power that they would otherwise enjoy. Two points in particular out of the eight that he provides have a greater emphasis on fundamental rights, the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights and the adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.

Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin holds both conceptions to be important and provides a rule book conception as well as a right-based conception as he says there must be a correct process but it has to be linked to political morality. Citizens have moral rights and duties with respect to one another, and political rights against the state as a whole. It insists that these moral and political rights be recognized in positive law, so that they may be enforced upon the demand of individual citizens through courts or other judicial institutions. He has parity with Bingham as he also, within his 8 principles, provides formal as well as substantive elements.

The formal approach considers the importance of the rule of law and that it is a powerful principle of the constitution, so powerful that it should not be infringed by moral views, therefore leaving no discretion to the content but rather focusing on the authority of this principle, that it does not matter what the law is, good or bad, but that it does possess this power to be unquestionable. The argument for Nazi law can be perceived in a way that deeply depends on the constitution and the values that it holds. In a democratic country, it can be easily predicted that laws will naturally hold democratic and moral values therefore it does not matter whether the rule of law is only formal conceptually. However, it can be noted that Raz`s statement is only of significance when it is viewed from a formal perspective. Although, even when looking through this lens, it appears to be contradictory in its own approach. He states that the key virtue of the rule of law is to protect individual freedom. However, he himself admits that this freedom is limited. His view does not provide any protection from oppressive laws nor does it express the desire to. It can be said that if the procedure of law-making and application of it is correct, then there is no need to consider the outcomes, the effects that it may have on society in terms of morality, or any violation of human rights. If laws are made without democracy, as he states that it is to be separated from the rule of law, how can they be made fairly? The formal conception ignores the human rights of citizens who make up a constitution, without its people, would not be what it is today.

Judges, in their role as journeymen judgment-makers, are not free to dismiss the rule of law as meaningless verbiage, the jurisprudential equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, even if they were inclined to do so. They would be bound to construe a statute so that it did not infringe on an existing constitutional principle if it were reasonably possible to do so.

Expanding on the above point, the substantive conception protects human rights regardless of whether a constitution is democratic, therefore if a democratic country had a change of heart or ideals, then the rights of individuals would still be protected if the law started to go bad. When there are no substantive components, laws themselves end up not being fair. Lord Bingham stated:

A state which savagely repressed or persecuted sections of its people could not in my view be regarded as observing the rule of law, even if the transport of the persecuted minority to the concentration camp or the compulsory exposure of female children on the mountainside were the subject of detailed laws duly enacted and scrupulously observed.

This essay has considered all conceptions of the rule of law, critically analyzing the formal and the substantive approach, favoring the latter. Raz`s statement holds value only so far as the formal approach goes. The extension of these ideals through consideration of fundamental human rights proposes a grander picture, an honestly more fair view of the rule of law. If a formal approach can go as far as looking at the process, it makes sense for the principal to go further and consider the outcomes and its position in the constitution when considering the people of the constitution.

The causes of the peasants ‘uprising, known as the Nice Fear of 1789, were the peasants’ impatience and desire to demand matters in their own hands because they were furious that they were forced to accommodate the chief of the taxation, the church tithes, and also the nobles who abused their privileges affecting their lives. The cause that pushed them over the sting to begin the uprisings was the rise in the bread price. The result of the rebellion was the burning of feudal records, the looting of neighboring lands, and, most notably, the state Assembly having no choice but to issue a decree on August 4, 1789, that abolished all noble privileges including the hunting rights, the fees for legal cases judged in an exceedingly lord’s court, forcing peasants to figure on roads, together with the abolishment of tithes.

The documents of the National Assembly were the August Decree, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and also the Constitution of 1791. The Enlightenment ideas are reflected in all like within the August Decree, the National Assembly revokes the nobility’s privileges and serfdom over the peasants during which they violated their natural rights, especially liberty by Locke still because of the economic ideas of Adam Smith of abolishing guilds. The freeing of the serfs reflected Diderot’s ideas. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen reflects the Enlightenment ideas of the government protecting the people’s natural rights of life, liberty, and property from Locke still because the general will of the people being taken into consideration by law coming from Rousseau. the liberty of expression and religion within the document shows the ideals of Voltaire. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy reflects Enlightenment ideas of secularizing the state and looking forward to the government rather than faith and also the church by secularizing religion and creating a national church. The Constitution of 1791 reflected Enlightenment ideas by making France into a constitutional monarchy with the center class controlling the government as advocated by Montesquieu.

The Parisian women furthered the Revolution by marching 12 miles from Paris to Versailles on October 5, 1789, to protest the shortages and also the rising cost of bread. The ladies invaded the homes of the royals and killed the bodyguards to appear for Marie Antoinette which made the house move to the Tuileries. Their march ended up forcing Louis XVI to sign a decree that guaranteed bread at an affordable price still because the women made the National Assembly intimidated by them. By the house moving to Paris, they saw the poverty of the peasants and destruction firsthand.

France ended up in foreign wars in the midst of their revolution because foreign rulers feared the Revolution which it’d spread when the house was arrested. Especially the monarchs of Austria and Prussia didn’t just like the arresting of the house so they issued the Declaration of Pillnitz to point out to the legislature that they were willing to intervene. Since the legislature was passed by the young, radical, and less cautious Jacobins than those of the National Assembly, they foolishly declared war on Austria because they wanted to be those to declare war rather than getting war declared on them. After that, Prussia sided with Austria which caused many battles. After Prussia had been stopped, it opened France to expansion and as they did the tensions escalated and also the National Convention declared war on Britain, the Dutch Republic, and Spain while at war with Austria and Prussia.

The type of balance the declaration attempts to strike between the rights and responsibilities of citizens is that the govt must and can protect the rights of the people as long as the people don’t benefit from the law or if the govt is in an exceedingly desperate state. For instance, it gives people the liberty of expression and religion as long as what they are doing isn’t harmful to others or disrupts the peace. Also, the govt will protect the natural rights of liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression, but within the case scenario of the govt needing one’s property, it’ll be compensated. Additionally, the declaration attempts to strike the balance between the rights and responsibilities of citizens when it involves taxes. They acknowledge that the citizen must pay taxes to keep the government running, but they’re going to not be taken advantage of and taxed over what they will pay. Additionally, it offers the rights of the citizens in criminal proceedings but affirms the fact that they’re going to be punished accordingly for his or her actions if they commit against the law or an officer that violates the proper proceedings is punished. The balance the declaration reaches is that citizens should and can be guaranteed their rights, however so as for that constitution to be kept, they need to follow through on their responsibilities.

Introduction

The existence of slavery in the United States has been a dark chapter in the nation’s history. While the Constitution is revered as a foundational document that outlines principles of freedom and equality, it also included provisions that allowed for the continuation of slavery. In this essay, we will explore the reasons why the Constitution permitted the practice of slavery, analyzing political, economic, and social factors that influenced this decision.

I. Compromises at the Constitutional Convention

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates from the northern and southern states engaged in intense debates and negotiations. The issue of slavery emerged as a significant point of contention, with the northern states advocating for its abolition, while the southern states sought to protect their economic interests and the institution of slavery. To secure the support of the southern states and ensure the ratification of the Constitution, compromises were made.

II. Economic Considerations

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the southern states relied heavily on the labor-intensive plantation system, which was sustained by the institution of slavery. The southern economy was deeply entwined with the production of cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, and rice, all of which were cultivated by enslaved labor. Many southern delegates insisted on protecting their economic interests and feared that the abolition of slavery would disrupt their agricultural practices and jeopardize their prosperity.

III. Political Balance and Representation

Another factor that influenced the Constitution’s allowance of slavery was the need to maintain a delicate balance between the northern and southern states. The southern states were concerned about their representation in the newly established federal government. They argued that if enslaved individuals were not counted as part of the population, their political power would be diminished. As a compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise was included in the Constitution, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining both representation in Congress and taxation.

IV. Preservation of National Unity

The Constitutional Convention was a crucial moment in the early years of the United States, with the framers aiming to establish a strong and united nation. The issue of slavery was a deeply divisive one, and the framers recognized the potential for disunity and even the dissolution of the Union if a strong stance against slavery was taken. By allowing slavery to continue, the framers sought to maintain unity among the states and secure the cooperation needed to establish a functioning government.

V. Societal Attitudes and Norms

The acceptance of slavery in the Constitution can also be attributed to the prevailing societal attitudes and norms of the time. Slavery was deeply ingrained in the fabric of American society, with many people holding racist beliefs that justified the subjugation of African Americans. These societal attitudes influenced the delegates’ perspectives and influenced the compromises made during the drafting of the Constitution.

Conclusion

While the Constitution is often hailed as a landmark document that laid the foundation for democracy and human rights, it also contained provisions that allowed for the continuation of slavery. The compromises made during the Constitutional Convention, driven by economic considerations, political balance, the preservation of national unity, and societal attitudes, shaped the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution. While the Constitution ultimately provided a framework for change, including the eventual abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment, it is essential to acknowledge and understand the complex factors that contributed to its initial allowance. By examining this history, we can gain insight into the challenges and complexities of creating a just and equitable society.

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787, is widely regarded as one of the most important documents in American history. However, during its creation, it faced significant controversy and debate. This essay will argue that the Constitution was a controversial document even as it was being written due to disagreements over issues such as representation, the balance of power, and the protection of individual rights.

Representation

One of the major points of contention during the drafting of the Constitution was the issue of representation. Smaller states were concerned about being overshadowed by larger states in the legislative branch. This led to the creation of the Great Compromise, which established a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The compromise was necessary to gain the support of smaller states, but it sparked debates over the fair distribution of power between states.

Balance of Power

Another area of contention was the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Some delegates favored a strong central government, believing it was necessary to maintain order and prevent the fragmentation of the country. However, others, particularly Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong central government would infringe upon individual liberties and erode state sovereignty. These concerns led to the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, explicitly reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.

Protection of Individual Rights

The absence of a clear statement protecting individual rights within the original Constitution was met with opposition. Many argued that the document lacked sufficient safeguards for personal freedoms and liberties. This criticism prompted the demand for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. It was through this process that the first ten amendments were eventually incorporated, ensuring protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the right to a fair trial.

Slavery and Compromises

Perhaps the most significant and contentious issue during the drafting of the Constitution was the institution of slavery. Southern states, reliant on slave labor, sought to protect their economic interests and preserve the legality of slavery. Northern states, on the other hand, expressed growing concerns about the morality and ethics of slavery. The compromise reached was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. This compromise exemplified the deep divisions over the issue of slavery and highlighted the moral conflict present within the document itself.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States was a controversial document even as it was being written due to disagreements over representation, the balance of power, the protection of individual rights, and the institution of slavery. The compromise and negotiations that took place during its drafting demonstrate the complex nature of the challenges faced by the framers. While the Constitution was ultimately ratified and has served as the foundation of American democracy, it is essential to recognize the controversies and compromises that shaped its creation. The ongoing debates and interpretations of the Constitution throughout history reinforce the importance of critical analysis and the need to continually address and reconcile the issues that arose during its formation.