Constitutional Inquiry
Texto del Guión Gráfico
- Why is the Legislative Branch considered the primary branch of government?
- Well, we're in charge of introducing new laws and can even make new amendments to the Constitution which is the framework of our country!
- The Legislative Branch also controls taxing and spending policies. Not to mention, it's instituted first in the Constitution...
- How does the president's veto affect legislation? How does the veto affect the relationship between Congress and the president?
- As the president, my veto can automatically reject a bill that Congress proposes. In order to override this, Congress needs to have a vote with a 2/3 majority.
- VETO
- This gridlock is making our citizens grow angry. No new policies are being passed and it's making us look bad!
- I'm beginning to question the president's agenda completely.
- How did the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison 1803 affect the principle of judicial review?
- My commission didn't get delivered! Can't the new Secretary of State do it?!
- Madison's refusal is unconstitutional, but so is our hearing of this case.
- As the new Secretary of State, I refuse to deliver your commission.
- Marbury'sCommission
- Even though the Executive branch receives the most attention due to the president, the Legislative branch is the primary sector of government. The Legislative branch essentially controls all of the government's importance decisions. It serves as a voice for the people, by making laws that influence and affect our daily lives.
- Follow-up Question: Is Judicial Review a violation of the separation of powers within the branches?
- Is Judicial Review a violation of the separat on of powers?
- With no reforms or policies being approved by the president, Congress begins to grow frustrated. Tension can form between these two branches in result. The checks and balances built within our system of government can create conflicts if the president and Congress have differing political views. An ongoing feud could be harmful/dangerous for the country.
- Jefferson v. Madison: Which maintenance on the Constitution is wiser?
- I think a compromise between the two would be fair since both sides have valid points. As Jefferson said, we have to evolve with each generation. However, we do not need drastic changes or a completely clean slate to do this. Simple additions like Madison suggested are safer ways to amend the Constitution. Amendments should be taken seriously because it affects every U.S. citizen. Also, making the amendment process more tedious allows for only vital amendments to be added. The foundation of the Constitution has worked for our country this long and I feel it will continue to work with the proper amendments.
- Though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was not able to grant the commission's delivery. The Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Court, was unconstitutional since it appeared to stretch their jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution established. In result, Marshall introduced judicial review, the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
- How is the Amendment process an expression of popular sovereignty? Should it be easier or harder?
-
- Without Judicial Review, the Constitution would be unenforceable. If governmental officials were to violate the Constitution, the only alternative would be in a process that offers little protection to those whose rights have been infringed on. Judicial Review protects civil rights and ensures that each branch of government recognizes the boundaries of its powers.
- I don't think Judicial review goes against the separation of powers because it is simply a method of checks and balances on other branches. Like the president can veto Congress, the Judicial Branch can declare actions unconstitutional. It is a duty the Judiciary system has to preserve and protect the Constitution.
- Madison's Plan
- Addressing "The Constitution is Crisis" article, I disagree with the fact that the Constitution is our system's problem because it isn't. Instead, it's the representatives in which we elect who do not have our best interest in mind. In regards to the second article, I believe the framers would've welcomed changes to the Constitution. The framers made their fair share of amendments and even drafted an entirely new Constitution after the Articles of Confederation failed. They created the Constitution and amendment process so that it could be altered as time went on.
- - Amending the Constitution should require work and be taken seriously- Keep the original foundation, adding tweaks and additions as needed
- Jefferson's Plan
- -Adapt and evolve with the needs of the time period- Wipeout old amendments every decade to ensure they're relevant for the generations to come
- I think the amendment process should remain the same, neither easier nor harder. If it becomes easier, an influx of pointless and nonbeneficial amendments could be put into place. Similarly, if it becomes more difficult, nothing would get passed no matter its urgency or importance. The current method of amending the Constitution is effective and provide for a decent amount of filtration so that strictly serious matters will be taken into consideration.
- Popular sovereignty is where the people hold the power. Since we're able to elect representatives, like the people voting above, we have some control over who is introducing our new bills/amendments. We can also propose ideas for bills to state and local representatives. Although the chances are slim to none of it passing, we still hold these rights and powers.
- I VOTED
- Ever since the amendment process got easier, there's been loads of careless amendments that are hurting our country.
- Nothing is getting done. It was better off the way it was!
Más de 30 millones de guiones gráficos creados