Free The Law of the Land Essay Sample
|← Racism Class Essay 1||Managed Care Contracts →|
Buy Cheap The Law of the Land Essay
The constitution is the law of the land. It is a set of rules made by individuals and have been accepted by the authority in place i.e. the government. It is meant to check on powers of the political class (William, 2). In regard to the countries which have the federal government, there should be a constitution that clearly defines how the government is structured, the powers bestowed on it and its responsibilities (William, 4). Through checking on the powers of the government, the law of the land ensures citizens are guaranteed of their rights. It basically comes in diverse levels in that; it can be a constitution that governs at national or regional level. It also provides for such groups as human rights groups and those groups that deal with workers among others (William, 6).
On the same note, there is a possibility of drafting a constitution that is being embraced by many nations like for example say countries in Europe. These basically are on such things which are universal such as human rights (William, 11). Such have been witnessed with a good example being the human rights which are observed in the twenty four countries of America that agreed on it. The European nations have a constitution on rights of human beings that bring together forty seven nations who are members of the European council (Alex, 13). The organizations which do not partake on politics like parastatals and groups regarded as voluntary, have their own constitution commonly known as memorandums of association. Countries like India have gone in the books as having the most comprehensive laws with United States regarded as having one of the least complex constitutions in written form (Alex, 17). Basically, a constitution can be in written form or unwritten. Written laws of the land are found in formal article while the unwritten is derived from diverse sources both in written form and unwritten forms such as acts by legislators among others.
On getting freedom from the Britons back in 1776, the experts took to the responsibility of setting up a government. The parliament came up with the first law of the land which was later put into effect after several years had elapsed (Cass, 14). At first, the drafted law was very difficult to operate with. The reason behind all this emanated from the battle that had brought a magnificent effect on the currency leaving the dollar at stake. It was also a hard task for the first parliament to collect enough cash as the central authority could not demand the paying of taxes by the states (Cass, 26). The then states did not recognize the parliament's effort to solve the existing disputes within states. On top of that, many citizens became pissed off with the inefficient parliament and kept pressurizing for something to be done. This graduated to another level with some demonstrations being launched against the central government. On seeing this, the protests were fast resolved but the legislature saw the need to put things in order for survival of its people (Leonard, 34).
In order to put the matter to rest, experts from states gathered back in the year 1786. When the meeting did not come up with something concrete, they agreed to have another conference in Philadelphia. This conference saw the need for getting new laws rather than amendment of the already existing constitution (William, 18). The bone of contention was mainly to review the structure of the parliament. The states which were not very big supported the idea of equality in parliament regardless of its size. The big states went for a parliament with two houses where representation will be guided by the masses (ANC, 54). This led to a situation where the Senate was going to have equal representation with the House of Representatives being represented in proportions. The experts in charge of drafting the law supported immensely the idea of separating power in addition to keep checking on the government to avoid being too mighty. This resulted to having a rather powerful executive alongside a judicial system which will be independent (ANC, 58).
After the experts had put all in place, they delivered the draft law to diverse states for acceptance. This was met with arguments from those who backed up the law being the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists who held a different view that the central government had been made too powerful (Constantinos, 102). Some Federalists' leaders made an effort of convincing the anti-federalists that it was important to ratify the laws. The Anti-federalists seemed to answer back but this came with conditions that some privileges be incepted in the bill of rights (William, 28). The experts did not find any difficulties in listing the executive powers. The idea of having a monarchial head was rejected with many saying an executive was required to take the country through the difficulties experienced with the previous laws of the land (Cass, 100). The constitution provided for an executive who will control the legislature voted in the office for a period of four years and would head the country's military, have a say on the members of judiciary and could reject what has been passed by the legislature (Cass, 108).
The judicial department was put under the chief justice who had his offices in Supreme Court. Many experts however, held a different view in that, the division of power was not strong to put some control on one powerful department of the government (Alex, 126). They hatched an idea of putting a system in place to control the executive. The executive could choose judges and pick on ministers of his choice, dignitaries to represent the country abroad but on after the Senate has approved (Alex, 128). The parliament was also allowed disapprove the decision of the executive by raising two thirds of the total members. They could also get him from the office if accused of corruption. The powerful court could also disapprove off the decision by the parliament (Alex, 129).
The experts were very sensitive on the grounds of how much power was allowed. The law of the land was therefore carefully drafted to make sure that the country was only being managed by persons with experience and not just any other quack. The previous constitution required the legislators to appoint the senators and this remained like that until later when changes were made (William, 30). By then, those to sit in the house were approved by people to serve or two years although their counterparts were stayed in office for six good years. The introduction of new law could only happen in the house but the senate had to approve that before being accepted as the law of the land (Constantinos, 261). There was argument on whether to accommodate the slaves in the voting. Some held diverse views that they should not be included in the counting. This was finally solved with them being regarded as other persons in the constitution so many years after (Leonard, 61).
Since time immemorial, the constitution has been regarded as among the most vital document in world legacy. It saw the installation of the first concrete authority which embraced democracy and facilitated the putting up of same laws of the land in the entire world (Leonard, 69). However, the upcoming men of history regard constitution as a set of compromise besides being confusing. In fact in the coming years, the changing of the law of the land proved rather difficult (Constantinos, 277). When the law of the land was being completed being put in place, back in 1787 many experts who were part of the commission of drafting the new law evacuated when it came to the time of instituting the same as a recognized law of the country (ANC, 127). The draft was received with mixed reactions with arguments of whether it had come with improvements. The federalists were rallying behind the most influential people who were behind the drafting (Constantinos, 298). The anti federalists did not like the idea of incepting the new law of the land. They had a disadvantage given that they were from humble backgrounds. They felt that a very powerful authority will look down upon them and not recognize the human rights (Constantinos, 312).
Finally, the federalists carried the day after a rather quick acceptance of the draft given that it allowed being powerful comparing with the earlier draft. This would later bring havocs in 1787 and a lot of arguments between these two groups (Constantinos, 321).