Assignments got your hair on fire?

Douse the flames with our full-range writing service!

Experienced academic writing professionals are at your fingertips. Use this handy tool to get a price estimate for your project.

What essays urged the ratification of the constitution

In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, as well as in cases L-36142, L-36164, L-36236 and L-36283, my vote is that the petitions therein should be given due course, there being more than showing that the proposed Constitution has not been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either strictly, substantially, or has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is and effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of the Land, without prejudice to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its ratification or rejection in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935 Constitution and the provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the FederalConvention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one asthe new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an electivemonarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government wouldhave been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which issolely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the variousstates of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.

Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?

Second amendment to the constitution essays - …

[8] Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?

"The theory that a favorable vote by the electorate, however unanimous, on a proposal to amend a constitution, may cure, render innocuous, all or any antecedent failures to observe commands of that Constitution in respect of the formulation or submission of proposed amendments thereto, does not prevail in Alabama, where the doctrine of the stated theory was denied, in obvious effect, by the pronouncement 60 years ago of broad, wholesome constitutional principles in , , as quoted in the original opinion, ante. The people themselves are bound by the Constitution; and, being so bound, are powerless, whatever their numbers, to change or thwart its mandates, except through the peaceful means of a constitutional convention, or of an amendment according to the mode therein prescribed, or through the exertion of the original right of revolution. "The Constitution may be set aside by revolution, but it can only be amended in the way it provides," said Hobson, C.J., in McCreary v. Speer, 156 Ky. 783, 791, 162 S.W. 99, 103. (Johnson vs. Craft, et al., 87 So. 375, 385, 387, On Rehearing).

4. "Congress cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals;the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erectingferries; building lighthouses, etc. " In one case, which may very frequentlyhappen, this proposition also fails. For if the river, canal, road, bridge,ferry, etc. , be common to two states, or a matter in which they may be bothconcerned, and consequently must both concur, then the interference and consentof Congress becomes absolutely necessary, since it is declared in theconstitution that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enterinto any agreement or compact with another state. "

Related Post of Second amendment to the constitution essays;

2. "Congress cannot enact laws for the inspection of the produce ofthe country. " Neither is this strictly true. Their power "to regulatecommerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and to make all lawswhich shall be necessary and proper for carrying this power (among others vestedin them by the constitution) into execution," most certainly extends to theenacting of inspection laws. The particular states may indeed propose such lawsto them; but it is expressly declared, in the lst article, that "all suchlaws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. "

(3) Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?

The harmful consequences which, as I envisioned in my concurring opinion, would come to pass should the said executive orders be immediately declared null and void are still real. They have not disappeared by reason of the fact that a special session of Congress is not now forthcoming. However, the remedy now lies in the hands of the Chief Executive and of Congress, for the Constitution vests in the former the power to call a special session should the need for one arise, and in the latter, the power to pass a valid appropriations act.

Versatile Services that Make Studying Easy
We write effective, thought-provoking essays from scratch
We create erudite academic research papers
We champion seasoned experts for dissertations
We make it our business to construct successful business papers
What if the quality isn’t so great?
Our writers are sourced from experts, and complete an obstacle course of testing to join our brigade. Ours is a top service in the English-speaking world.
How do I know the professor won’t find out?
Everything is confidential. So you know your student paper is wholly yours, we use CopyScape and WriteCheck to guarantee originality (never TurnItIn, which professors patrol).
What if it doesn’t meet my expectations?
Unchanged instructions afford you 10 days to request edits after our agreed due date. With 94% satisfaction, we work until your hair is comfortably cool.
Clients enjoy the breezy experience of working with us
Click to learn our proven method

argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution


Written to urge ratification of the Constitution, ..

When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, thefoundation should be firmly laid. The Constitution proposed to your acceptanceis designed, not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. Theprinciples, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to havebeen clearly and precisely stated, and the most express and full declaration ofrights to have been made. But on this subject there is almost an entiresilence.

Essays written to promote the ratification of the constitution

Thus, sir, jury trials, which have ever been the boast of the Englishconstitution - which have been by our several state constitutions so cautiouslysecured to us - jury trials, which have so long been considered the surest barrieragainst arbitrary power, and the palladium of liberty, with the loss of whichthe loss of our freedom may be dated, are taken away by the proposed form ofgovernment, not only in a great variety of questions between individual andindividual, but in every case, whether civil or criminal, arising under the lawsof the United States, or the execution of those laws. It is taken away in thosevery cases where, of all others, it is most essential for our liberty to have itsacredly guarded and preserved: in every case, whether civil or criminal,between government and its officers on the one part, and the subject or citizenon the other. Nor was this the effect of inattention, nor did it arise from anyreal difficulty in establishing and securing jury trials by the proposedConstitution if the Convention had wished to do so; but the same reasoninfluenced here as in the case of the establishment of the inferior courts. Asthey could not trust state judges, so would they not confide in state juries. They alleged that the general government and the state governments would alwaysbe at variance - that the citizens of the different states would enter into theviews and interests of their respective states, and therefore ought not to betrusted in determining causes in which the general government was any wayinterested, without giving the general government an opportunity, if itdisapproved the verdict of the jury, to appeal, and to have the facts examinedinto again, and decided upon by its own judges, on whom it was thought areliance might be had by the general government, they being appointed under itsauthority. Thus, sir, in consequence of this appellate jurisdiction, and itsextension to facts as well as to law, every arbitrary act of the generalgovernment, and every oppression of all that variety of officers appointed underits authority for the collection of taxes, duties, impost, excise, and otherpurposes, must be submitted to by the individual, or must be opposed with littleprospect of success, and almost a certain prospect of ruin, at least in thosecases where the middle and common class of citizens are interested. Since, toavoid that oppression, or to obtain redress, the application must be made to oneof the courts of the United States - by good fortune, should this application bein the first instance attended with success, and should damages be recoveredequivalent to the injury sustained, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, inwhich case the citizen must at once give up his cause, or he must attend to itat the distance, perhaps, of more than a thousand miles from the place of hisresidence, and must take measures to procure before that court, on the appeal,all the evidence necessary to support his action, which, even if ultimatelyprosperous, must be attended with a loss of time, a neglect of business, and anexpense, which will be greater than the original grievance, and to which men inmoderate circumstances would be utterly unequal.

with the ratification of the Constitution; ..

. . . . in all those cases, where the general government has jurisdiction incivil questions, the proposed Constitution not only makes no provision for thetrial by jury in the first instance, but, by its appellate jurisdiction,absolutely takes away that inestimable privilege, since it expressly declaresthe Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Should, therefore, a jury be adopted in the inferior court, it would only be aneedless expense, since, on an appeal, the determination of that jury, even onquestions of fact, however honest and upright, is to be of no possible effect. The Supreme Court is to take up all questions of fact; to examine the evidencerelative thereto; to decide upon them, in the same manner as if they had neverbeen tried by a jury. Nor is trial by jury secured in criminal cases. It istrue that, in the first instance, in the inferior court, the trial is to be byjury. In this, and in this only, is the difference between criminal and civilcases. But, sir, the appellate jurisdiction extends, as I have observed, tocases criminal, as well as civil, and on the appeal the court is to decide notonly on the law but on the fact. If, therefore, even in criminal cases, thegeneral government is not satisfied with the verdict of the jury, its officermay remove the prosecution to the Supreme Court; and there the verdict of thejury is to be of no effect, but the judges of this court are to decide upon thefact as well as the law, the same as in civil cases.

Ratification of the US Constitution in New ..

The harmful consequences which, as I envisioned in my concurring opinion, would come to pass should the said executive orders be immediately declared null and void are still real. They have not disappeared by reason of the fact that a special session of Congress is not now forthcoming. However, the remedy now lies in the hands of the Chief Executive and of Congress, for the Constitution vests in the former the power to call a special session should the need for one arise, and in the latter, the power to pass a valid appropriations act.

89%
of clients claim significantly improved grades thanks to our work.
98%
of students agree they have more time for other things thanks to us.
Clients Speak
“I didn’t expect I’d be thanking you for actually improving my own writing, but I am. You’re like a second professor!”