Ever since its independence from Great Britain in 1779, the United States of America has been a land with a people holding various opinions are social, economic, and political issues. The very first major issue that divided the founding fathers of this nation was either the central government should hold more authority, or the individual states. The Federalist and Anti-Federalists parties emerged as a consequence of this. A source of such disputes lies in the founding documents of America, such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, themselves. The most significant challenge faced by modern Constitutional Democracy in the United States is the difference of opinion in Constitutional interpretations, and their appliances to the law.
The founding documents of the United States were created, but were never meant to be set and stone. Rather, such documents were set to be a contract between the federal government, state governments and its people, and is intended to be evolved as time moves on in order to best appeal to the consent of the governed. In court of law, whether as a defendant, prosecutor, judge, or juror, the Constitution will always be referred to in order to make a case. This is where the ideology of “consent of the governed” comes into place. Thomas Jefferson writes about definite rights that every person deserves in the Declaration of Independence, and that “...Governments are …show more content…
In this debate, broad constructionists and strict constructionists are are in argument. Because there is no specific mention of healthcare, or any understandable variation of it, explicitly stated in the document, strict constructionists argue that healthcare is most definitely not a Constitutional right. Broad constructionists argue that though healthcare is not written down specifically, it is
The founding documents of the United States were created, but were never meant to be set and stone. Rather, such documents were set to be a contract between the federal government, state governments and its people, and is intended to be evolved as time moves on in order to best appeal to the consent of the governed. In court of law, whether as a defendant, prosecutor, judge, or juror, the Constitution will always be referred to in order to make a case. This is where the ideology of “consent of the governed” comes into place. Thomas Jefferson writes about definite rights that every person deserves in the Declaration of Independence, and that “...Governments are …show more content…
In this debate, broad constructionists and strict constructionists are are in argument. Because there is no specific mention of healthcare, or any understandable variation of it, explicitly stated in the document, strict constructionists argue that healthcare is most definitely not a Constitutional right. Broad constructionists argue that though healthcare is not written down specifically, it is