The constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol failed for many reasons, but mostly because it was a change at the national level that did not have national support. One of the defining differences of the United States is that are overall area contributes to vastly different regional societies with unique morals and principles. The idea of a constitutional ban on all alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, or even caffeine could be welcomed by the majority in certain areas of the country but seen as an abject misuse of power by the government in other more liberal areas. For example, many states have already taken the steps to legalize marijuana sale and possession as a result of overwhelming support from a majority of their constituents. A constitutional amendment to ban marijuana would see the rise of much political unrest in these states and the return of drug cartel based distribution and organized criminal activity. …show more content…
This movement has seen much support nationwide because it controls second hand smoke exposure by non-smokers. However, a constitution ban on the sale of cigarettes would be less likely to find favor and would greatly infuriate the states and companies that depend on the income from growing and selling tobacco. Finally, I do not believe many if any states or localities would support any type of ban on caffeine. The effects have not been publically proven to be permanently debilitating and the use of caffeine does not pose any risks to society or public decency. I agree with the book that the best method for controlling the consumption of these substances is at the lowest possible level of government so that each society can determine its level of acceptance and
Government was created, and has always been, to enforce law and order. “Governments almost certainly originated with the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order” (Purposes, 2016, par. 2). Without government, the people would fall into disorder and chaos, causing unhappiness and hardship throughout the nation they live in; it would be anarchy. Constitutional governments not only protect citizens from foreign threats, but also domestic threats from within. In America, a citizen’s freedoms extend as far as they want until they infringe upon the rights of another citizen. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are only some of the many rights promised to the American people. These rights are set forth by a well-
Every year, Congress proposes a ton of amendments. Some are reasonable, and some of them are just crazy. The rate of proposed amendments throughout the 1990s is absurd. This roller coaster of a rate went all the way up from 214 in 1990 to only 60 proposes amendments in 1999. So far in the beginning of the 21st century, the country stays steady in the proposing department at around the 70-80 rang according to senate.gov. Needless to say, in 1789, the people proposed 10,431 amendments. But, of course, these insane numbers doesn’t necessary mean anything if they are not passed.
The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the
In his book, “The Liberty Amendments” Mark Levin argues well on how the slow creep of federal power in the United States has slowly disenfranchised the local government under the guise of propagating and deifying a ‘national government approved’ form of democracy. The people received a message of nationalism, and personal power while at the same time receiving a watered down version of what the founding fathers had originally intended.
The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.
On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a compromise engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the Constitution's legitimacy.
The Framers of the United States Constitution gave more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments. They did this because they wanted to bring the United States together under one government. Federalists and Anti-federalists had their own views on the Constitution. Many people believed that the Constitution was a good thing that would be a success for the United States. Other people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the Executive branch. The writers of the Constitution gave more power to the Federal government instead of the state governments because the Federal government did not receive enough power in the Articles of Confederation.
The United States Constitution was an important document that changed history and a flexible document that could adapt to future challenges for many reasons. This important document replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had many problems from the beginning. Over time, the Constitution has also been amended to meet the challenges in the future.
The Second Amendment removes the definition of militia. It supports the freedom and the security of a person to keep and bear Arms. This is said to be necessary and allowed in a free state, and the rights of the citizens shall not be infringed. No one should have to fear their safety. Whatever measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of the citizens should be taken. The main goal of the Second Amendment is to ensure people’s safety.
Those that oppose upholding the Second Amendment should consider the following scenario: It is the middle of the night, an armed intruder breaks into a home in a well-lit residential neighborhood; the intruder knows the home owners are home, and despite this knowledge, illegally enters the home. The father, awakened by the noise, listens for a second and realizes that someone has broken into his home. Concerned for the safety of his family, the first thing the father does is dart straight for his shotgun, and checks the bedrooms of his children. Assured that his children are safe the father proceeds to the common areas of the residence and spots the intruder in the living room.
Ever since the Second Amendment was established, it has become one of the most important rights for a citizen today. In 1789, James Madison outlined the Bill of Rights, adding in the Second Amendment. Initially, it was meant to offer security to anti-federalists who feared that the government might extract too much power. Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment is not granting the people the right to bear arms, but instead works as a reminder for the government that it is a natural right for the people. Today, the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Acosta).
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The second amendment has been the subject to much political disagreements and controversy. It was written and ratified in December 1791 (Brooks “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms”). There are many who want to repeal “the right to bear arms” because they feel they feel that is why criminals get a hold of weapons so easily. Others say that citizens should have access to their own weapons and protection. Even more political controversy has arisen due to the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada last week-end leaving more wanting to revoke the second amendment. In spite of this, I have been brought to the conclusion that the second amendment should not be redacted because, some rely on hunting as an income, citizens have a right to defend themselves, and citizens have a right to defend their freedom.
To amend the constitution, various steps and procedures must be taken. When either Congress (which takes a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives), or a constitutional convention (which takes two-thirds of the State legislatures) want to propose an amendment, they give it to the National Archives and Records Administration. The Congress proposes the amendment as a joint resolution to the National Archives and Records Administrations Office of the Federal Register for the publication process. The Office of the Federal Register adds legislative notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The Office of the Federal Register also puts together an information package for the States
The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.
The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1789. It begins with, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The constitution was to serve basic rights to citizens, such as establishing fairness between each and every individual, insure that all men are treated equally, and insure that the Federal Government, along with the executive branch, maintains the law and peace inside the country. This means that it tries to prevent altercations and rebellion inside and outside of the country. It was ratified in Philadelphia on September 17.1787 by delegates to the Constitutional Convention.