(no subject)
Lauren Hodge
3rd
La Title
The Constitution brings life to a new kind of government, one of which honors the needs of every citizen as best it can within its own country. Written meticulously, it describes a system under which our unalienable rights may never be taken away. However there are those who have misunderstood, or perhaps ignored its beautiful and efficient features, and in turn deemed them frightful. For instance, Mr. Henry sees this document as no more than a pot boiler, one that waits with anticipation to become tyrannical. However gentlemen, I stand to refute his claims which were born from sensationalism rather than reason and to defend the Constitution….
I first refute Mr. Henry’s arguments regarding the president and the executive branch. He boldly asserts that the Constitution lays immeasurable powers in the president’s hands, primarily the armed forces, with which he may maneuver to meet his own designs. However with the system of checks and balances in place, which by the way are clearly stated throughout this document, the president may find it rather difficult to do as he pleases with our country’s military. Article two, section one does say he is the commander and chief of the army and navy. However, in order to declare war or make captures on land he must first have two thirds of the legislative branch’s, or congress’, consent. If his actions are not in the best interest of the people, and serve only to benefit him, is it rational to say that two thirds of the congress will appease him? Mr. Henry may wonder what would happen if Congress disapproved and the president ignored it. Article one section eight states that Congress provides the funds for the army and maintains it. So should the president declare war without Congress’ agreement, they could remove the army’s funds and render it useless. Keep in mind, that Congress also has the power to impeach the president should he be convicted of treason.
Another concern expressed by Mr. Henry is that our constitution was written on the assumption that all men are good. However upon reading the document one might confirm that it was written on the opposite assumption. The intricate system of checks and balances also apply to the judiciary and legislative branches. Mr. Henry is distraught that the legislature we trust will pass laws to take away our liberty. However, two checks lay in place to counter just this deviance from the Constitution. The executive branch may veto, or reject the law. Another check the Constitution allows the president on the Legislative branch is the ability to call a special session after they have rejected his veto. During this special session a compromise which is in the best interest of the people can be made. The judiciary branch comes into play in the case that Congress should refuse to succumb to both the Executive branch’s checks. The Supreme Court has the ability to interpret laws passed by the Congress and determine whether or not they are constitutional. If a law has been declared unconstitutional, it will be discarded.
It may appear at first that the judiciary and executive branches could possibly work together to achieve a personal goal, given that the president is in charge of appointing the judge of the Supreme Court, but there even exists a check to prevent this. All appointments made by the president must be approved by Congress according to article two, section two of the Constitution. The legislative branch may also impeach judges whose rulings may seem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is also not the only court, because the legislative branch may establish courts below the Supreme Court.
Mr. Henry says that our dearest rights will be sacrificed for a minority of men in power and that we will soon find ourselves oppressed by a monarchy because we trusted our officials too greatly. He then has the audacity to contradict himself in saying a king is preferable to a president. This is an odd statement to hear from a man who not long ago was so patriotic about the war to end a monarch’s rule over us. He suggests we set up a parliament similar to one we were previously ruled by. Does this not obliterate the point behind our struggle to achieve a better system of government? This Constitution is the answer. It does not “squint towards monarchy” but rather squints towards the most perfect form of government man has ever established. In its opening it states all of its goals, each one insuring the prosperity of this country’s most important element: the people.
(The constitution does not assume all men are good. On the contrary)
(Opposing Viewpoint. Born of emotion, not the facts. Mr. Henry needs to learn arithmetic, what about 2/3’rds don’t you get. The constitution well protects democracy. )
3rd
La Title
The Constitution brings life to a new kind of government, one of which honors the needs of every citizen as best it can within its own country. Written meticulously, it describes a system under which our unalienable rights may never be taken away. However there are those who have misunderstood, or perhaps ignored its beautiful and efficient features, and in turn deemed them frightful. For instance, Mr. Henry sees this document as no more than a pot boiler, one that waits with anticipation to become tyrannical. However gentlemen, I stand to refute his claims which were born from sensationalism rather than reason and to defend the Constitution….
I first refute Mr. Henry’s arguments regarding the president and the executive branch. He boldly asserts that the Constitution lays immeasurable powers in the president’s hands, primarily the armed forces, with which he may maneuver to meet his own designs. However with the system of checks and balances in place, which by the way are clearly stated throughout this document, the president may find it rather difficult to do as he pleases with our country’s military. Article two, section one does say he is the commander and chief of the army and navy. However, in order to declare war or make captures on land he must first have two thirds of the legislative branch’s, or congress’, consent. If his actions are not in the best interest of the people, and serve only to benefit him, is it rational to say that two thirds of the congress will appease him? Mr. Henry may wonder what would happen if Congress disapproved and the president ignored it. Article one section eight states that Congress provides the funds for the army and maintains it. So should the president declare war without Congress’ agreement, they could remove the army’s funds and render it useless. Keep in mind, that Congress also has the power to impeach the president should he be convicted of treason.
Another concern expressed by Mr. Henry is that our constitution was written on the assumption that all men are good. However upon reading the document one might confirm that it was written on the opposite assumption. The intricate system of checks and balances also apply to the judiciary and legislative branches. Mr. Henry is distraught that the legislature we trust will pass laws to take away our liberty. However, two checks lay in place to counter just this deviance from the Constitution. The executive branch may veto, or reject the law. Another check the Constitution allows the president on the Legislative branch is the ability to call a special session after they have rejected his veto. During this special session a compromise which is in the best interest of the people can be made. The judiciary branch comes into play in the case that Congress should refuse to succumb to both the Executive branch’s checks. The Supreme Court has the ability to interpret laws passed by the Congress and determine whether or not they are constitutional. If a law has been declared unconstitutional, it will be discarded.
It may appear at first that the judiciary and executive branches could possibly work together to achieve a personal goal, given that the president is in charge of appointing the judge of the Supreme Court, but there even exists a check to prevent this. All appointments made by the president must be approved by Congress according to article two, section two of the Constitution. The legislative branch may also impeach judges whose rulings may seem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is also not the only court, because the legislative branch may establish courts below the Supreme Court.
Mr. Henry says that our dearest rights will be sacrificed for a minority of men in power and that we will soon find ourselves oppressed by a monarchy because we trusted our officials too greatly. He then has the audacity to contradict himself in saying a king is preferable to a president. This is an odd statement to hear from a man who not long ago was so patriotic about the war to end a monarch’s rule over us. He suggests we set up a parliament similar to one we were previously ruled by. Does this not obliterate the point behind our struggle to achieve a better system of government? This Constitution is the answer. It does not “squint towards monarchy” but rather squints towards the most perfect form of government man has ever established. In its opening it states all of its goals, each one insuring the prosperity of this country’s most important element: the people.
(The constitution does not assume all men are good. On the contrary)
(Opposing Viewpoint. Born of emotion, not the facts. Mr. Henry needs to learn arithmetic, what about 2/3’rds don’t you get. The constitution well protects democracy. )