Hobbes And The Constitution Research Paper

1085 Words 5 Pages
Hobbes believed that the state was one body, but it had individual parts. This is reflected in the Constitution because it gives each state the right to rule within their state, but then all the states have to some together to form our nation as a whole. This is seen specifically in the tenth amendment when the power not specifically given to the federal government through the constitution is given to the states. Mill believed that the country should be ruled by the majority but the minority should be protected. This is how our country works, we make decisions by voting and the majority wins, but there are rules in place to protect the minority during this time. Much of our government is guilty of using principles from Machiavelli. He says …show more content…
They fixed it specifically by adding the Commerce Clause which says that congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, other states, and with Indian tribes. This means that we need a strong government that can make smart decisions so that our trading relationships will benefit the country, and not get us into trouble. For individual states and citizens, the government has the right to look over the trade they are participating in. In some ways this could be viewed as a restriction to the liberty of citizens, but the Founding Fathers were most likely attempting to look out for the country and trying to avoid as many issues for the country as possible. This reflects the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, and Aristotle because all those men felt that it was important for the government to be involved with the affairs of its country. As the Founding Fathers took these ideas into consideration, the idea of government being able to intervene in trade shows that the Founding Fathers also felt that it was important to keep the government involved. As Hobbes points out, without government intervention to look over affairs between humans, there will be disagreements (which he calls war) that will be bad for all countries and parties …show more content…
After the civil war ended and slavery was abolished, there were all these former slaves who were now free. In the 14th Amendment it is attempting to say what the rights of free people in country are. When the Supreme Court incorporated these rights over time, it shows that they were being cautious in giving everyone their full rights. The Supreme Court is legislating from the bench when doing this because they are delaying giving people their rights, because of the feelings toward the freed slaves. Creating legal fictions would be passing something off as truth, even though it is not, in order to achieve the goal at hand. The difference between these types of legislation matters because one is considered to be a lie while the other is truth, just with the wrong influences. In the case of the 14th Amendment, creating rights for freed people was forced, not necessarily something the Supreme Court wanted to do. Because of this, the Supreme Court ended up legislating from the bench in an attempt to limit the rights of newly freed people as much as they

Related Documents