Majority Rule Vs. Checks

Should the State have more vote based on its size or population? Delegates congregated about whether or not to have the vote become powerful in the area of the state or through its people. Larger states viewed the same number of votes as unconstitutional. Smaller states resided with tradition, wanting to keep the one vote per state. However, just because a state is larger does not mean it has more people. I believe that a compromise of these things are the best method to settle this dispute. Today, elections are focused on the electoral college and votes based on the populace. However, it is unjust to say that a vote based on state size (electoral vote) is important or more important than individuals votes. A prime example of this is the Bush …show more content…
Checks and Balances, there is a debate about how the founders of the United States are questioning the judgement of their people through the three branches of government. The original founders are dubious whether or not to allot more power to the people as well as to the regulation or unconstrained of the three branches of government. One side sees the people are the necessary fundamentals for the establishment of an effective democracy, whereas others thought that the people were ignorant about voicing their own opinions. My personal opinion is that the people should have the majority of the power. However, as above, it can occur where the people can become ignorant to a certain idea or issue. When the people realize that their power and ideas are flawed, they conform by seeking/electing other authoritative bodies to establish a more regulated type of control. In this way, the dependence between people and government is mutual. Otherwise, I support a system of checks and balances since the checks and balances allow governing bodies to keep each other in check, as to where one governing body such as the legislative branch has limited control over another branch to keep it from becoming too extreme. In terms of keeping the different governing branches connected, the issue of regulating this is extremely crucial (5) to the meaning of a limited government. Democracy is too extreme because the people can accomplish anything, which makes the power …show more content…
On one side the Bill of Rights can be viewed as an escape clause from constitutional mandates, According to Colonel Hamilton of New York, “A Bill of Rights is not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but also dangerous. It would contain various exceptions to powers not granted”. However there are also pros to the establishment of a Bill of Rights, Mr.Martin of Maryland argues,”I have said it before, and it is true today, as a group you are completely insensitive to the freedom and happiness of the states and their citizens,”. I believe that the idea of creating a Bill of Rights is necessary, but there a margin for error. For example, today people abuse their freedom of speech to create racially discriminative slogans or take the meaning of something to a negative level. The fact of the matter is that there will never be a law that can stop this from happening or obviously not a law limiting freedom of speech. I propose that one should make amends to the Bill of Rights, if possible, as to prevent such from happening while maintaining the fundamentals of the document. Although this is a very serious issue, the idea of changing the foundation of the Bill of Rights is overshadowed by more offensive actions that directly oppose the Constitution such as weekly shootings across the country,