Why did the Framers of the Constitution believe that a division of powers and a system of checks and balances?
Bottom line is this. They were afraid of any system of government in which a person, or a small group of people could make the rules and take over. They wanted a strong central government in which the powers would not be so strong as to take away the rights of states or individuals. To keep a small group or an individual from taking those steps they adopted a system of checks and balances they felt would prevent that.
What was the intent in the United States Constitution of having two disparate concepts, "high crimes," and "misdemeanors" in the scope for impeachment proceedings?
I don’t think the Framers of the Constitution intended “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be distinct concepts. The phrase was proposed by George Mason, a Virginian delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who thought treason and bribery shouldn’t be the only impeachable offenses. At first Mason proposed “maladministration” as a third impeachable offense, but his fellow Virginian James Madison said that was too broad; it would let Congress remove the President for any reason at all. So then Mason suggested “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead. This was a single legal phrase that had been used many times in British impeachments since the Middle Ages to cover a wide variety of abuses and misconduct in royal office. At the very moment of the Constitutional Convention, the UK Parliament was impeaching Warren Hastings, former governor of Bengal in India, for high crimes and misdemeanors, which included not only bribery but also allying with local warlords in an unjust war and sentencing an innocent man to hang. Mason alluded to Hastings by name and suggested that the President should be removable on similar grounds. (Hastings, by the way, would ultimately be acquitted on all charges).In British impeachments, high crimes and misdemeanors did not include all criminal violations, nor did they have to be criminal conduct at all (a judge who habitually hurled verbal abuse at witnesses was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors), but they had to constitute abuse or neglect of one’s office, or at least conduct that brought your office into disrepute.I based much of my answer on this very useful article: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?
The American Constitution was put together by a group of thougtful, elitist, white males living in the 18th century. They were influenced by the "enlightenment" thinking of that time. They had no conception of what kind of world we would be living in today in the 21st century. How could they possibly have written something that would still make any practical sense?Thomas Jefferson realised this. In a letter to John Adams he wrote:“No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please.”Yes, Jefferson realized that any constitution is often rapidly outdated. He suggested that the useful life was about one generation -- in his calculation that was merely nineteen years!The problem is that changing a constitution is very difficult. Canada managed to repatriate its constitution in the 1980s -- the "British North America Act" had been an act of the British Parliament over which Canada to that point in time had no legal control. Canada did it, however, but it was terribly difficult despite the fact that the British were cooperative in the process.Conclusion: Yes, the US Constitution is grossly outdated. It was made for the world of the late eighteenth century. But, alas, it would be unimaginably difficult to change it in this time of extreme political rivalries. I expect that, for all its problems, the US is stuck with the constitution that it has.
How does the amendment process under the constitution deffer from that under the Articles?
The articles were the original body of the Constitution, and the amendments were necessary to bring all the states on board because some things were forgotten or neglected. Since then, that same amendment process has been used to modify our Constitution as needed. This is why the "Living Document" school of thought is such a pipe dream and should be abandoned in the trash-heap of history. The Constitution is based upon an ORIGINAL INTENT interpretation, also known as Constructionist, not a LIVING DOCUMENT (or DE-constructionist) interpretation. Under Original Intent, I can listen to my teacher on the first day of school and know what the rules will be on the last day, because they are based upon his original intent. Under a Living Document interpretation, I can say 5 minutes later that it is okay to shoot spit wads and kick my neighbor's chair because after all, the rules change with the times to fit the new scenarios that arise and couldn't have been foreseen five whole minutes ago . . . I had a prof in college who taught the living document theory and harped on it until I turned it on his words and had the whole class roaring with laughter. He got beet red, stormed out of the classroom and never again mentioned or attempted to advocate living document theses during our class.
The Declaration of Independence states “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers fr?
The Declaration of Independence states “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (a) Describe one way in which the ideal of government was implemented in the Articles of Confederation. (b) Describe one way in which this ideal of government was neglected in the Articles of Confederation (c) Describe one way in which this ideal of government was implemented into the U.S. Constitution in 1787 (d) Describe one way in which this ideal of government was neglected in the U.S. Constitution of 1787
What are some solutions to problems of street children?
I like John Mixon's answer and would add to his Point 1 that studies show that when poor women are given access to birth control, they use it. And when teens in the United States were given the opportunity to choose free voluntary implanted birth control, the rate of pregnancy plummeted.Also, it seems to me that ultimately, the solution to this problem in the third world is to reduce poverty, and that that requires that third world countries imitate the nations of the first. That requires a high level of morality in public officials, an emphasis on education and delayed gratification, a free market economic system (although socialist states can also address this issue, albeit they fail in other respects), and a secular, rational emphasis rather than a religious one.In the first world, street children are far less common and are generally a consequence of children fleeing brutality at home, drug abuse, or abandonment over parents due to issues like transsexualism. These kids need safe options *before* they hit the street.
Can someone help me on writting this essay?
What is the greatest cause/reason for a man/women to want to revolt against his/her government/leader? I want in a 5-point essay format. I would really appreciate it. I already wrote this essay but i want your opinions. There is no right or wrong answer just write what you think. I will choose your answer as he best answer if you write it to me.