Q A (3)
The three major issues which arose during the Constitutional Convention debate included representation, slavery, and nature of the presidency (Nedelsky et al. p.340-360). The large states wanted representation to be based on population size while small states opted for fair representation. Finally, it is the compromise of the two that exist today, i.e., The House (based on population) and Senate (equal representation of two per state). On the issue of slavery, slave states advocated for counting of slaves for representation, and not for taxes. Concerning the nature of the presidency, Hamilton wanted a more powerful president while Madison and most Federalists called for limits on the presidential powers. The Federalists favored the Constitution. They believed that it would be impossible for the country to survive without passing the Constitution, and the necessity of a stronger national government especially after the failed Confederation Articles (Nedelsky et al. p.340-360). Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the Constitution. Their argument was that the Constitution provided lots of power to the federal government, taking away much power from local and state governments.
Q B (2)
The checks and balances approach is an essential component of the American Constitution. It enables all the three government branches to limit the powers exercised by any of them (Greene p. 123-129). Therefore, through this system, none of the branches becomes excessively powerful. Each branch of government “checks” the power being exercised by other two branches to ensure that power is exercised in a balanced manner between them (Greene p. 123-129). A classical example of the present working of checks and balances is the process of lawmaking. Firstly, the bill is introduced and voted upon by the legislative branch. The bill is then passed to the executive branch; here, the president evaluates the bill’s suitability to the nation. If so, it is signed and becomes enactment into law. Otherwise, he/she doesn’t sign the bill, owing to the veto power bestowed upon the presidency/executive. However, with enough number of votes, the veto power of the executive branch can be overridden by the legislative branch, and the bill still becomes law (Greene p. 178-196). The moment law enactments have been done; the public can test them through judicial branch, i.e., the court system. A successful example of the latest checks and balances events can be drawn from 2015 court’s ruling over the U.S Environmental Protection Policy control of gas emissions by greenhouse power plants.
Work Cited
Greene, Abner S. "Checks and balances in an era of presidential lawmaking." The University of Chicago Law Review 61.1 (1994): 123-196.
