There were many ways that the constitution guarded against tyranny. In 1787 ,fifty five delegates met in philadelphia to fix the articles of confederation. They decided to make a new government, called the constitution, that prevented tyranny. Tyranny is a noun that means a cruel or oppressive government or rule. The constitution prevents dictatorship and tyranny in four ways: federalism, separation of power, small states vs. large states compromise, and checks and balances system.
Federalism guards against tyranny in many ways.”In the Compound republic of america, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” This …show more content…
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny...Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” This quote is saying that if one group or person has all the power, there will be tyranny.There are three branches, the legislative branch, executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislative branch makes the laws, while the executive branch enforces them. The judicial branch judges of the laws are broken. This guards against tyranny because it creates a system of checks and balances to prevent one group from having too much power. If you separate the three powers, no group will have more power than the other and they can't do whatever they want, preventing …show more content…
large states compromise guards against tyranny. The quotes “ Representatives shall be apportioned according to population.” and “ The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.” both show how the small states vs large states compromise guards against tyranny. It provides equal representation in the senate, which protects the smaller states, and unequal representation in the house of representatives protect the bigger states. The smaller states would have been happier with the representation in the senate because they would get equal representation and they would have the same number of senators in office as the bigger states. The larger states would have been happier with their representation in the house of representatives because they get more representation. If this compromise has not been made, the larger states would have had more power, which would have caused
Federalism guards against tyranny in many ways.”In the Compound republic of america, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” This …show more content…
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny...Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” This quote is saying that if one group or person has all the power, there will be tyranny.There are three branches, the legislative branch, executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislative branch makes the laws, while the executive branch enforces them. The judicial branch judges of the laws are broken. This guards against tyranny because it creates a system of checks and balances to prevent one group from having too much power. If you separate the three powers, no group will have more power than the other and they can't do whatever they want, preventing …show more content…
large states compromise guards against tyranny. The quotes “ Representatives shall be apportioned according to population.” and “ The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.” both show how the small states vs large states compromise guards against tyranny. It provides equal representation in the senate, which protects the smaller states, and unequal representation in the house of representatives protect the bigger states. The smaller states would have been happier with the representation in the senate because they would get equal representation and they would have the same number of senators in office as the bigger states. The larger states would have been happier with their representation in the house of representatives because they get more representation. If this compromise has not been made, the larger states would have had more power, which would have caused