How does the constitution limit government power to protect individual rights while promoting the common good?
The truth is that the U.S. Constitution no longer limits governmental power in any meaningful way. Thanks to Supreme Court rulings the original constitutional principle of enumerated powers has been gutted; Congress is no longer limited to the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 (and a few powers listed in other areas of the document) as Madison and others insisted it was, it can do anything that can be done with money, i.e. Congress can spend money on anything it defines as “general welfare.” Madison foresaw this possibility if the general welfare clause was ever interpreted in an expansive way, and the Supreme Court in U.S. v Butler (1936) and Helvering v. Davis (1937) essentially spit in his face.To be sure the Bill of Rights still provides some protection for the rights it lists, although the liberties contained in those rights are slowly but steadily being eroded as well.
Should the government limit civil liberties/constitutional freedoms as a response to terrorism?
I agree with Benjamin Franklin who said that those who would give up freedom to get security deserve neither. We always talk about honoring those who fought and died for our freedoms, why would someone want to throw that away? Are we afraid to die for that which others died to give us?
What is the world's oldest continuous government?
I'm not asking about the oldest country, city, culture, or religion- just government please. Please rule out govenments and/or monarchies that have been overthrown, invasioned by outsiders, changes of power- the inclusion of a prime minister (i.e. from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy) etc... Thanks.
How does the constitution limit the power of the government?
How does the constitution limit the power of the government?I cannot explain how another country’s government is limited by a constitution, but I can explain how the US Constitution limits the power of the federal government.Our constitution is a creature of sovereign states and their populations. The constitution was drawn up to solve one notable weakness of the Articles of Confederation. There was no central power that would cause the states to act in concert in making wars, making treaties, settling interstate disputes and present a single face to any foreign powers.To solve this weakness, the Constitution was drawn up to define only those powers that were necessary to the functions that the federal govern was to perform. All other powers were retained by the states and their citizens.What has obscured this limited status of the federal government has been historical occurrences that some have used to twist the interpretation of constitution to accomplish some solutions for short-term problems that have remained with us when the problem was no longer important or relevant. But these twisted interpretations remain as settled law.If we as a people and the state where we reside are not able to undo what has been done over two centuries, we will have powerful federal government who will dictate to the states and their populations with little regard or concern for our wishes or concerns being geographically removed from most of the population. Call this the federal leviathan.We the people of the states have two ways to reverse this situation: Article V of the Constitution that permits the states to call a convention of states (COS) with the purpose of amending the Constitution. And … the X Amendment which provides the states with the power to nullify federal law.
Religion as a means to gain power and money?
So many non-believers feel that religion and the belief in God/Jesus is about controlling people and gaining wealth. In the New Testament Jesus helps mostly poor people and sinners. He helps those who are in need. He even said that it is harder for a rich person to inherit the kingdom of God. So, if religion/Jesus were all about power and money, then why did He spend so much time preaching to the poor? Why not preach to the rich? Your thoughts please. Thank you.
Is it important to learn about other cultures?
Important, err well. YES. Not for the sake of that culture but to provide another perspective. Other cultures provide different ways of looking at the world and our place in it. They show why what you or your culture think of as "right" might not be. Other cultures also show how we all have a lot and I mean a lot in common. Without learning about other cultures, you have no hope in understanding what the world is really like. For example, learning about the people of Easter Island and their history can help us to understand why we must conserve resources of our environment. Why we must work together and why we should be prepared for potential disasters. Learning about Nazi Germany helps us to understand why the power of government should be limited and why the press should be free. The real reason why we should learn about other cultures is because they help us to improve our understanding. Such as the history religious tolerance in the middle east [1]. Or the Etiquette in Japan. All of these help us to understand that we aren't #1. Why we aren't the best. However they also teach us how we can be #1. How we can be the best. If we choose to ignore the lessons learned by others. We will be condemned to repeat them. [1] Middle East History Shows Long Legacy of Religious Tolerance, Coexistence - US News
In a three way, how did the Constitution limit the power of the federal government?
The constitution forbids the federal government from passing an "ex post facto law, a law which makes an act committed in the past that was legal, now illegal. And the constitution forbids the federal government from passing a bill of attainder. That is a law which punishes anyone by legislative act. These are forbidden to the federal government. The federal government is prohibited from establishing a state religion financed by tax dollars. There are many other ways that the federal constitution prohibits government from certain acts. Our government is limited."Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master"- George Washington.
Freedom of Religion question?
Could someone help me with this question? I truly have no idea how I'd go about answer's it. Your government cannot interfere with your right to believe as you wish. It cannot unfairly limit your right to practice your religious beliefs. What responsibilities might go along with these rights? Suppose you believe in a particular religion. You attend a church or temple in your community. List and explain what responsibilities you should have in the way you practice your religious beliefs. Suppose there are people in your community who believe in different religions or in no religion at all. List and explain what responsibilities they should have to protect your right to practice your religious beliefs. List and explain what responsibilities you should have to protect other people's right to practice their religious beliefs or not to have any religious beliefs. What might happen to the right of freedom of religion if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?
Religions prohibit many behaviors that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from; which is primary, the religion or the constitution?
The Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, puts limits on the powers of government. Although religions vary, most put limitations on the actions of individual practitioners. There are two kinds of conflicts that this can lead to, of a rather different nature, and which should not be confused:State mandates conflict with sincerely-held religious beliefs. For example, in a famous case Jehovah's Witnesses refused to follow laws that called for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or swearing oaths, both of which were against their religion. The Supreme Court decided in their favor, that their religious freedom was paramount. But note that this, from a legal perspective, was not a conflict with religion per se, but a conflict between an inferior law and the 1st Amendment.Religious beliefs that extend beyond the individual but are treated by adherents as mandates on the population as a whole. This can lead to conflict, but is generally settled as a political question. It might even involve changing the Constitution. For example, a large portion of the abolitionist movement was motivated by religious zeal. They wanted to impose their religious views (slavery was evil and must be ended) onto the public at large, including infringing on the property rights of slave owners and against the law of the land, upheld by the Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott decision. So religious views in direct conflict with the Constitution. Which was primary? Well, history shows the result.I hope these two examples show that little is gained by an overly-simplistic view of religion and the Constitution. They are not entirely distinct. There is a constitutional protection of free practice of religion, and religion informs political views which can challenge existing laws, even challenge the Constitution.