Fundamental Rights of the Individual Essay Example for Free

Fundamental Rights of the Individual Essay The forefront of American politics was drastically shaken at the turn of the American Revolution as the monarchial order once imposed on the Patriots had finally collapsed. The implementation of the Articles of Confederation into the states bestowed a great sense of independence that had never before been experienced while under British rule. The Articles of Confederation served its purpose by launching a political structure which opposed a monarchial system and defining what that meant to the people. Despite the inherent flaws of the Articles of Confederation, this newly adopted governmental structure established a mission statement of American politics which still exists in our government today: the power of the fundamental rights of the individual. The states had gained true independence under this confguration and this ideal was something that many opponents of the ratification of the Constitution were refusing to sacrifice. Implementing a central government would shift power from the newly sovereignty of that states that had not been easily obtained and this ignited a fear of possible tyranny of the majority if the Constitution was eventually ratified. Submitting to a Constitution meant that they would have to place a sense of trust into a strong central government and this was not something taken lightly. Facing a declining economy amongst other problems brought on by the Articles of Confederation, something had to be done to remedy the unforeseen issues between the states. Both federalists and anti-federalists induced a great debate through the means of numerous publications released to the public prior to the ratification of the Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that: all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the goverened (Dolbeare, 59). This pivotal statement became the crux of the ideal that the opponents of the Constitution had feared losing. The opponents to the Constitution would not waive this notion of maintaining the power of the individual to secure rights that they found to be rightfully theirs after the overthrow of the British Crown. Due to the fact that many of the federalists held positions of power, there was a vast amount at stake for the opponents to lose if the Articles of Confederation were to be redefined into a system that may not emphasize states rights. The above passage contains one of Jeffersons most quoted, ambitious statements as its meaning has evolved through time and played a great role in shaping what we now call the American Dream. For instance, today, society has the evolved the meaning that all people of this nation are created equal and not Just the Caucasian, property owning men. In this doctrine, hese rights professed by Thomas Jefferson are not Just subject to certain groups; rather, all people, who may have separate interests, fundamentally have the right to express and lobby for the endorsement of interest. ajority as they lay out and define the checks and balances in within the governmental system that would be in place by the Constitution. For example, the federalists outline that the proposed branches of the government would have power to compel one another. For instance, the Supreme Court holds the power to interpret the constitutionality of a law put into place by the federal government, the president ould have the power veto a proposed bill from the legislature, and the legislature would be able to override the president with a two-third majority in each compartment. Pitting these powers against one another would keep them in check and ensure that the majority would not solely hold the supreme power. In the Federalist No. 39, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, advocating for the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison references the conditions of the adversaries of the Constitution: They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of overeign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States (Madison). Madison acknowledges that the opponents refuse to let the formulation of a national government to take too much power from the states. The opponents view the Constitution as transforming the federal form of government that the Articles of Confederation had been intended for to national form of government, thus making the citizens of the states subject to that national power rather than only subordinates to their respective state. However, Madison elaborates: That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States (Madison). In this passage, Madison argues that the under the Constitution, the central government will contain both elements. For instance, if the states vote to go through with the ratification, this ill be a federal act, not an overarching national act of tyrannical power. At this moment, the states are seen as sovereign bodies, and the ratification would be a result from unanimous assent from the states as well as its own voluntary act (Madison).

Historians Perspectives :: History Historical Essays

Historians' Perspectives Every situation can be looked at from so many different angles that it is very difficult for any two people to agree on what is going on. Ten people could look at the same situation and create ten different theories or assumptions as to what is occurring. This is because no two people have the same backgrounds, no two people have the same experiences, and no two people think exactly the same. These factors come together to distinguish each person as an individual. Every person has the ability to interpret the same situation in a different way. This occurs more often then not, when one historian has a theory about a time period or a historical event. One historian could look at the assassination of John F. Kennedy and think that it was a governmental conspiracy, while another may look at it merely as an ex-marine that went mad and killed the President. Still on the same subject a third historian may combine facts from both arguments to create a whole new view of his own. This is exactly what occurred after Richard Hofstadter wrote his book The Age of Reform. He made an argument on progressivism in his book in 1955, which was not written as fact but more as opinion. After that three different articles were written on the same topic from different angles. Richard L. McCormick, Paula Baker, and Peter G. Filene, all wrote articles which either agreed or disagreed with Hofstadter. At points they completely disagreed with points that Hofstadter made, but then in the same article they agreed and support a point Hofstadter made. All four people wrote on the same topic but all four took different views. This was their right as individuals to do and at some points they had similarities but then at others they went to other sides of the spectrum. Hofstadter in his book, The Age of Reform, broke down the age of reform as a time period from 1896 to the 1930’s. Within this time period, he then divided it into three separate sections or movements. The first section being that of the populist movement, the second was the progressive movement, and third was the reforms made during the New Deal. He begins with the populist movement and how it started based on the agrarian myth in rural and southern areas. This myth had the farmers thinking that they held an important part in society and that their job has a special value.

Henry Moore Sculptures

Digging deeper into the meaning of Henry Moor's sculptures Moor's sculptures are exhibited all around the world. In Moor's homeland, the sculptures are exhibited in Eke Botanical Gardens, the natural surroundings of the gardens compliment the sculptures. It feels as if the sculptures are different during the different times of the day. In the morning, when the sculptures are wrapped in mist, or during midday when the blue sky and sunshine makes them shine, or in the evening, when the sculptures absorb the red evening sun.All these different interpretations and perspectives would not be possible to see if the sculptures were in a museum, where no natural light would compliment the sculptures. Moore always manages to draw a connection between the sculptures and the landscape. For example, in the following picture, there is a hole in the sculpture, and when you look through there is an abundance of green, if there was a white wall behind it, the sculpture would not be as impressive. Per sonally, I love the fact that the sculpture is almost one with nature, it really blends into the surroundings.The three main themes around Moor's work were the reclining figure, the mother- child relationship and the embryo-like ‘internal-external' forms idea. Moore was influenced by constructivism and surrealism, this is pulled through by the biomorphic forms that Moore produced and also suggested how the human figure could be fragmented into simple, essential forms. Many of Moor's sculptures have holes in them, either in the middle or symmetrically. To me it seems like the shapes come from the hollow space in the

US Government Study Guide to the Legislative Branch

Before any bill is even debated by the full membership of the House or Senate, it must first successfully make its way the  congressional committee system. Depending on its subject and content, each proposed bill is sent to one or more related committees. For example, a bill introduced in the House allocating federal funds for agricultural research might be sent to the Agriculture, Appropriations, Ways and Means and Budget Committees, plus others as deemed appropriate by the Speaker of the House. In addition, both the House and Senate may also appoint special select committees to consider bills relating to specific issues.Representatives and Senators often try to be assigned to committees they feel best to serve the interests of their constituents. For example, a representative from a farming state like Iowa might seek assignment to the House Agriculture Committee. All representatives and senators are assigned to one or more committees and may serve on a variety of committees durin g their terms in office. The  congressional committee system  is the burial ground for many bills. The US House of Representatives Known as the lower house of the legislative branch, the House of Representatives currently has 435 members. Each member gets one vote on all bills, amendments and other measures brought before the House. The number of representatives elected from each state is determined by the states population through the process of apportionment. Each state must have at least one representative. Apportionment is recalculated every ten years according to the results of the decennial U.S. census. Members of the House represent the citizens of their local congressional districts. Representatives serve two-year terms, with elections held every two years. Qualifications As specified in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, representatives: Must be least 25 years of ageMust have been a U.S. citizen for at least 7 yearsMust be a legal resident of the state he or she is elected to represent Powers Reserved to the House To vote on charges of impeachmentTo initiate bills involving the raising of revenue, such as tax bills and the annual appropriations (spending) bills of the annual federal budget House Leadership Speaker of the HouseMajority LeaderLeads the majority party (the party with the majority of votes in the House)Assists the Speaker of the House in making committee appointmentsSchedules floor debate on billsCreates and maintains the House agendaMinority LeaderLeads the opposition party (the party with the minority of votes in the House)Confers with the Majority LeaderFormulates minority party response to the majority party policy and agenda The US Senate Known as the upper house of the legislative branch, the Senate is currently comprised of 100 senators. Each state is allowed to elect two senators. Senators represent all citizens of their states. Senators serve 6-year terms, with one-third of the senators elected every two years. Qualifications As specified in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, senators: Must be at least 30 years of ageMust have been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of their election to the SenateMust be a legal resident of the state they are elected to represent Powers Reserved to the Senate To try officials impeached by the HouseTo confirm presidential nominations, including Supreme Court justices, federal judges, ambassadors and cabinet secretariesTo ratify treaties Senate Leadership The Vice President of the United States: Serves as president (presiding chairman) of the SenatePresident Pro tempore: Presides over the Senate in the absence of the vice president; Is selected by the majority partyMajority and Minority Leaders: Lead their respective party delegations; maintain the Senate agendaMajority and Minority Whips: Attempt to make sure party members vote for bills supported by their party.