The constitution strengthened the central government in several ways. For one, the supreme law of the land allocated which powers were specific to the government and the states. This, however, led to an ongoing conflict between the federal government and the states. While the states do have certain powers, they will always be superseded by federal law and interests.
The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are similar in that they both establish a framework for government in the United States. However, the Constitution provides for a stronger central government with more specific powers and a system of checks and balances, while the Articles of Confederation created a weaker central government with more power given to the individual states.
Yes it is and no its not
they gave very little power to the central government and if the central government wanted to pass something all the states would have to ratify it.
The anti federalists criticized the constitution because they felt that it would give too much power to the federal government and take away the rights of the states and local government branches. The anti federalists argued that the constitution provided for a centralized form of government rather than a federal government form.
Specifically he opposed the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution which he felt gave the Federal Government unlimited powers and would eventually lead to infringement of civil rights.
strengthened by listing all their natural rights and making an equal government.
The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are similar in that they both establish a framework for government in the United States. However, the Constitution provides for a stronger central government with more specific powers and a system of checks and balances, while the Articles of Confederation created a weaker central government with more power given to the individual states.
read the book. pg 63
It's ALL OPINIONATED. Argument A - Constitution is BAD The Constitution actually creates a VERY weak central government. There are very many ways to point this out. For instance, The Constitution is only 4 pages long. Most countries' governing documents are 10 times that size. Also, most of the Constitution is a list of what the government can do (The Second Article is a huge list of powers granted to Congress), but it then says that all rights not EXPLICITLY granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the States. So the Constitution is a very limiting document, because the federal government cannot act outside of it; they can only do things that are expressly permitted. The Articles of Confederation, the governing document during the Revolution and before the Constitution (it only lasted about 10 years) had an extremely weak federal government. In the AoC, the central government couldn't print their own currency, and had no power to collect taxes from the states, only to ask nicely for them. This, of course, was barely a government at all, so the Founders decided on the Constitution, which is still, in comparison to most of today's governments, a very weak central government. ========== Argument B - The Constitution is GOOD ACTUALLY it's a very STONG GOVERNMENT because a) the constitution doesn't NEED to be long to be to-the-point-spelling-out-the-rights-of-the-country. Perhaps it only spells out exactly what it needs to. b) The government has limited power so that nobosy takes over and creates TYRANNY. Remember, this was back just after the Americans drove the British out for not being vcery nice. (Not that they dealt with the British very well... I truly can't take sides in this matter) AFter the Intolerable Acts, the Americans were afraid that another cruel leader would come along... c) we have the ability to CHANGE the Constitution! These are amendments! 27 have already been passed, and although it isn't very easy to make amendments, THAT is the point - the entirity of state legistlatures have to agree (actually no- only 3/4, but still...) to change it.
The Constitution limits the powers of government by creating the three branches, executive, judicial and legislature, all of which check the power of each other.
Yes it is and no its not
they gave very little power to the central government and if the central government wanted to pass something all the states would have to ratify it.
The constitution isn't interpreted using evolutionists thinking. It is a foundation for government and by definition a philosophy like evolution doesn't fit within the interpretation of the constitution.
The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected the institution of slavery, ensuring that it could not be abolished, while the U.S. Constitution allowed for the possibility of amendments regarding slavery. Additionally, the Confederate Constitution emphasized states' rights more strongly, limiting the central government's power compared to the U.S. Constitution, which aimed for a stronger federal authority. Lastly, the Confederate Constitution included a one-term limit for the president, contrasting with the U.S. Constitution, which permits re-election.
1. Checks & Balances 2. Separation of Powers 3. Federalism
It is a true statement that over the years, the power of the President to make executive agreements has expanded in ways that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution. The U.S. system of government was designed to have three co-equal branches of government.
The Constitution divides the government into three branches; legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each has specific powers and duties, to make sure that each branch of government fulfills its responsibilities without exceeding its power.